User talk:Qwyrxian

Article re-review after edits

Thank you for your comments on my article (located at Articles for creation/Linwood Pendleton). I have done extensive editing of the article, finding a variety of third party sources and changing the format based on your suggestions. Can you please re-review the article and let me know if it is now ready for the encyclopedia? I really appreciate your help and constructive comments/criticism. Thank you! Mrlwiki (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at it quickly, and it looks much better--there's probably enough there to verify notability. I should have time to take an in-depth look at it within the next three days. One thing I noticed on a first glance is that the references are all messed up; it may have happened be because of the article move from one space to another. That's not a problem--it's something that can be fixed, but will just take a little bit of time (and can even be done after the article is moved into mainspace). Actually, I just realized I might be able to make the changes with an automated tool, so let me give that a try later on today when I review the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking more closely, it appears that the references can't be fixed automatically; rather, by hand, each one needs to be changed into the proper reference format. I changed the first two; if you take a look at the draft, you can see how I did that, using the <ref></ref> tags, as well as {{Cite}} templates. This will take time. If you think you can handle it, please feel free to give it a try; otherwise, I'll come back and work on them as I have time and inclination. There's over 30 references, so it may take me a while. If you want to try the work, I recommend turning on advanced editing tools; you can do that by going to "My preferences" in the upper right of your screen, going to the Edit tab, then click on the 2 boxes at the bottom under "Usability features". This should give you, in your editing window, a choice marked "Cite". Then, on the left, there's a pull down menu called "Templates"; when you choose the appropriate one, a dialogue box pops up that gives you blank spaces that you can fill in the relevant fields, then formats it automatically. You can also type up the template by hand, as well.

There are other things that could be improved in the article--for instance, I feel that much of it is overly long/detailed, but that can be done after the article goes live. But I think we should get the references fixed first before moving it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your review of my article and for taking the time to give me examples of what I need to do to fix the remaining references. I will be working on them and will let you know when I am done since I am not sure what to do to move the article over and have it go live.Mrlwiki (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the references, please let me know what I need to do next to move the article over. Thank you. Mrlwiki (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help and patience! I was so discouraged when my article first got rejected but you gave me great advice and help which is why I stuck around. Thanks again! Mrlwiki (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! It's interesting, because we have a kind-of perpetual debate on Wikipedia, about whether or not new users should be able to create articles directly (right now, they can), or whether they should use something like Articles for Creation. If you had put your original article directly into the encyclopedia, it would likely have been deleted in no more than 7 days, because all bio articles must be sourced; even if a source was added, someone might have removed all of the good but unsourced info. Instead, since you went through AfC, we were able to talk about it, your draft remained while it was undergoing (you didn't have to bother learning about and arguing about deletion), and, in the end, you added a great article to Wikipedia. Some people think that making new user use AfC will decrease their motivation, but I still think that having your potentially good but not ready for mainspace article deleted is way more demotivating. As always, feel free to ask me if you need help with anything else in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi, How to find the list of pages created by someone from the date he joined Wikipedia ? Thanks.

(Mahesh Yadav (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).

Within WP itself, I think you can only get the most recent month, which you can see by looking at Special:NewPages and entering the person's username in the appropriate field.

However, on the toolserver, there are all sorts of tools you can use. Specifically, you can go [1], and enter a person's username, and get a full list of all articles ever created by a person (although, I assume it doesn't show deleted articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Qwyrxian, I went through the article about Judicial reforms in India again and realized what you were talking about. Sorry I did not catch that early. On second thought I will change my decision to Delete since much of the statements do not even have sources. Thanks for the time spent trying to get me to see the point about the need for deletion. Hope to work more with you on other stuff on WP. Have a nice day.-- CrossTempleJay  talk 08:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking a second look. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok i will not move aticles for afd

it was done to save the article with a better name. Will take care in future. Thanks.  Mahesh Kumar Yadav  talk 11:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

To save the article, you'd need completely re-write it about judicial reforms that have already existed. Wikipedia cannot and will not ever host an article about "judicial reforms being demanded in country X". That's nothing other than an advocacy piece for one specific point of view. Apologies, because I don't want to strictly be discouraging, but if you cannot see why an article advocating for one side of a particular political issue is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then I'm not sure how you can work here productively. Such information might possibly belong, in a few, well chosen details, in some other article. But we don't write articles like "People's support for candidate X" or "Arguments in favor of position Y." Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

Even the government of the People's Republic of China are calling the border facilities as between (Mainland) China and Hong Kong (or Macau) in its own material published online and in state-sponsered newspapers and other media outlets. SchmuckyTheCat is taking a hardline Chinese communist approach to be ultra-nationalistic. To sum up, he's trying all his effort to stress that China is in control. He has been in trouble for long with airline destination lists. 218.250.143.151 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the user page, and the link to the timeline of events, and see the similarity. If the IP isn't blocked, I'll keep reverting what I see on Huggle (although I may not be on much longer). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Do you understand what SchmuckyTheCat has been doing? 218.250.143.151 (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you are a banned user. This means that your edits are not allowed--whether or not they are correct. By definition, banned users may not edit under any circumstances, and their edits may be reverted on sight. If you want to be unbanned, please follow one of the methods listed at WP:UNBAN. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting IP edits on my talk page

Yeah, title says it all really heh, thanks very much for reverting user 99.191.118.124 on my talk page. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pkk Militant Terror Group

to be objective we should state that pkk is terrorist group, as in the al-Qaeda page Ermancetin (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss it on the article talk page, because not all sources state that they are. All we can do is report what reliable sources say. Again, the article does say that some governments consider them a terrorist organization. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But the goverments know nothing about the terrorism in Turkey, or they dont want to consider, ok i am opening a talk in the article page... Ermancetin (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and please reply

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Captain Screebo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I assume you're watching my talk page, in case you're not, I have replied to you. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Updated, with thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Qwyrxian, Thanks for the link, Not to offend but when i checked it for you to check the number of fresh articles you have created, it show only 'one' http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Xionbox&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects If its true, i want to ask how can a person who have not created a good number of articles, can understand the pain of an article being deleted. Why should one delete content, without feeling the pain of creating it.  Mahesh Kumar Yadav  talk 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if that's why you wanted to know. The answer is multifold. One, I have created a lot of content on Wikipedia--I just do it in existing articles rather than in new articles. And I have had my contributions changed, altered, and, even, deleted (I can think of times where I spent many hours rewriting, re-organizing, and re-searching sources, only to have my contributions wholly rejected or removed by consensus). Second, I don't have access to an English library, so I can't easily conduct the research materials necessary to verify most topics. More importantly, though, it's that I actually enjoy being an "editor" in the normal sense of the word. That is, an "editor" (in the real world) is a person who works at a publishing company, who takes the writings of others and corrects, alters, improves, and, sometimes, even deletes/rejects them entirely. No high quality work can exist without both "writers" and "editors".

Ultimately, though, the problem is that you're approaching the issue from the wrong perspective. Why is the "pain" you went to in creating these articles a relevant issue? For example, what if an editor wrote an article explaining all about how Indian people are stupid, old-fashioned, greedy, and smelly (none of which I believe at all--I'm trying to prove a point). Could that person defend their article by saying that they had worked very long and hard to write it? Of course not. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That does not mean that it is the "encyclopedia where anyone can write anything they want to and have it automatically become a permanent part of the site". The fact is, we have many different rules about what types of content we should have, how to organize it, and how to format it. Your contributed articles and content have regularly and consistently violated those rules. You're trying to push a point of view, you're adding copyrighted text to Wikipedia in ways that is not only against policy but actually illegal, and you're fragmenting topics into micro-articles that aren't sufficient to stand on their own.

I would rather not have to recommend your articles for deletion (note, by the way, that I've only done that with one or two of your articles so far, and one template, if I remember correctly). I would rather that you work with me and others to learn how to create acceptable content/articles. For almost everything that you've been writing, it certainly looks like you need to be doing that within existing articles, not creating new ones. It means that you need to learn how to write neutrally. It means that you have to immediately stop copying over information from other websites directly without rewriting and summarizing them. Do you want to learn how to write and edit the Wikipedia way? If you do, I will help (as will many others). If you don't, then I and others will continue to recommend your articles for deletion, remove your unacceptable content, you'll get more frustrated, and you might even eventually be blocked. Truthfully, at this point, it's up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. I respect you and your way of contributing. Also i didn't asked for the tool to check the list of articles specifically for you. :-) I checked 10s of others admins and contributors, but many of them have more than 50 or 100 articles that they have started and those articles are presently surviving on Wikipedia. I fully agree with all the things and reasons you have said and i understand them pertaining the quality of content. I want you to put your foot in my shoe. Try to create 10 articles (at present times) that you think are needed and are important. Feel the problems to survive the article. Experience how much time it takes. A seed can't grow till it is separate from its mother tree. Most of the times, when a separate new small article is created with the motive of growing it, it is merged by someone into the parent article. There it fails to grow because the content can't expand there beyond particular limits. In this way it makes difficult for Wikipedia to expand. The baby articles if have potential to grow, they must be nurtured, corrected, improved and instead of merging into the parent article, if the parent article is big itself.Also a person from that region or country sometimes better understands the importance of particular articles, but admins from other locations underestimate its value. Just sharing my views, nothing against you or anybody. Thanks.  Mahesh Kumar Yadav  talk 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Michio Kaku

This edit, which you labeled "vandalism", was not. I believe it was a genuine good-faith attempt to add information, (He added true information; Introduction in Physics of the Impossible verifies that) even though he didn't cite a source.

Remember to assume good faith, keep a generic edit summary whenever possible, and be paranoid that someone (like me) is going to dig out a revert revision with a bad edit summary and tell you on your talk page.

On an entirely related note, I'm not watching this page, so DO NOT leave a {{tb}} on my talk page. Fragment the discussion there or leave a {{wb}} instead. --43?9enter ^★_☭ 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Langley High School (Oldbury Grammar)

Qwyrxian - you deleted reference to Oldbury Grammar School song on the basis the content was "trivial" and against Wiki guidelines. How come there's a wiki page to school songs at other UK schools and the songs are shown in full in relevant wiki pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_song

Are you going to take it upon yourself to remove those also or do you now agree, based on this evidence, that such content is integral to the culture and tradition of such schools in the UK and the content should be restored?

Cresconian

∼∼∼∼

First, we need clear evidence that the song lyrics are not copyrighted. By default, all song lyrics are copyrighted unless they are really old (I don't know about the UK, but in the US it's 75-95 years or older, and sometimes even older works can still be copyrighted). Now, they may not be, if they were specifically released into the public domain, but we'll need evidence of that. Only fragments of copyrighted works may be used, which in the case of songs would probably be a line or two, and then only if they serve a clear purpose in the text. This is the part of the issue that is non-negotiable: if the works are copyrighted, then they must be removed from Wikipedia, without any exceptions, because keeping them would be violating not just policy, but also the law.

Now, lets assume they're not copyrighted. Then I would still argue that they should not be included, but that would be an issue of more discretion and would require discussion and consensus. WP:NOT, one of our core principles, states that Wikipedia articles are not "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." I would argue that would be what the song is--just a large public domain source. A more specific discussion of this principle is found in the guideline, Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. However, exactly how much of a primary source to use is up to editorial discretion. We'd probably have to seek a consensus, which might require getting a third opinion or setting up a Request for Comment. But that's an issue we can cover later.

As to your final paragraph: No, I'm not going to take it upon myself to remove all of them. I don't have the time or inclination. Wikipedia has over 3 million articles, and I have lots of them that I already work on and want to continue working on. Note, though, that the fact that other articles have problems doesn't mean that you get to justify keeping problems in ones you like once the problems have been identified (this principle is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Otherwise, we could never fix any problems so long as others existed (which they, of course, will). You're, of course, welcome to engage in that work yourself, if you're interested. The final point, "is integral to the culture and tradition of the schools" doesn't really matter here. Wikipedia articles are not here to preserve the culture and tradition of the schools, or to promote the schools, or to otherwise show them off. We're here to provide an encyclopedic summary of factual information about the schools that has been verified by reliable sources. No more, no less. Do we live up to this goal? We try, but obviously its a very long term goal.

So, your first step at this point if you want the song to be reintroduced is to clear up the copyright issue. Once that's cleared up, I would be happy to go through the process needed to determine whether or not the song is appropriate per WP:NOT. Let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian - Thanks to local Sandwell Council archives, I have managed to establish the music & words were written by J.G.Howarth M.A. Headmaster. The current earliest known publication was 1928 in the school magazine The Oldburian. Tips on where to go from here?

Cresconian 195.92.44.114 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's extremely helpful. I don't know UK copyright law, but will endeavor to either find out or find someone who does. Apologies as it may take me a day or two, but I'll definitely try to start tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, sudden computer problems. I think I have the answer, but I'm going to leave a message with a copyright expert. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, question: does your info happen to say the date that Howarth died? That is sometimes relevant in UK copyright cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian - I've been nosing that very point but no info has come to light. He was headmaster at the opening of the school on the Moat Road site in 1926 and pix show him as middle aged then. 195.92.44.114 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I was asked to weigh in on this situation. :) This is fairly complex and not really very encouraging to use. First, see this chart at Cornell. Here's the basic situation: if it was first published in the UK in 1928 without following US formalities and it had become public domain in the UK before January 1996, it's public domain (PD) in the US. In the United Kingdom, when the author is known, copyright expires 70 years after his death. Clearly, that can't be the case, since the author was still alive and publishing in 1928. If it was not PD in the UK by January 1996, it will not be PD in the US until 95 years after its first publication--2024. This is true even if it has lapsed into public domain in the UK. There is one exception that might make it PD in the US even if it was not PD in the UK by 1 January 1996: if it was published in the US within 30 days of its original publication in the UK, it would be PD in the US if it wsa published without proper copyright notice or if it was published with copyright notice that was not renewed. We'd need evidence of that publication in the US, and it would have to be within 30 days. If it was published in the US 31 days later, that exception would not apply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very very much, Moonriddengirl. So, Cresconian, it sounds like this is most likely copyrighted, meaning including it in the article isn't even a consensus issue--it's a strictly legal/policy one. You're welcome to try to do the research Moonriddengirl explains, but note that, as I said before, I don't think that it belongs in the article even if it is free, so you'll have to do a lot of research and then still have to try to get consensus to say that this doesn't meet the restrictions on excessive use of primary sources found in WP:NOT. Personally, I'd recommend against the effort, but it's certainly up to you. You mentioned before that this same problem may be on other Wikipedia UK school articles; if you know of any, feel free to remove the lyrics yourself or let me know, and I can help. I'm not going to hunt them down myself, as I have other projects occupying my time, but we do want to get any copyrighted or likely copyrighted texts off of WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BIg thanks to Moonriddengirl for her info. I will dig deeper for dates & PD evidence. I am very sure those who have researched history of other schools & posted school songs would be very offended if I pulled them down as I'm certain they will share the view that they are integral to, and exemplify, the unique culture & tradition of each school and express far more than the lyrics alone (copyrighted or not). So I'll be leaving their fate to others. Instead I'll stick to getting the copyright issue sorted, then I'll be back for consensus. In the meantime, thank you for your guidance and input. It is most appreciated. 195.92.44.114 (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. He is a rather energetic new user isn't he! I think we need to keep from discouraging him though, this kind of energy we need to keep around the community. Would you mind continuing to help me advocate/work with him? Sadads (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some queries

hi, would you like to write you view on some of the questions asked here. User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Who_will_bring_Indian_villages_to_wikipedia Thanks, (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)).

Is deltion of somebody's talk subpage allowed

User talk:PMDrive1061 deleted my talk subpage User talk:Maheshkumaryadav/List of schools in districts of India. The page was not having any offensive contents, but was edited to perfection by me for three hours. The deletion of contents from 'main' domain can be understandable, but is deleting my subpage which i was planning to use fair. Has he violated any rules. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That does look strange:I can't think of why PMDrive1061 would have done that. The reason given certainly doesn't make sense. Generally your sandbox should be a subpage of your userpage (i.e., it should have been User:Maheshkumaryadav/List of schools in districts in India), but I don't think that would justify deletion. My guess is that it was a mistake based on that naming. The best course now is to wait until xe responds (xe's most likely not online now)--if it was a mistake, xe can restore it very easily. If there was some other specific reason, then you can discuss it then. There's a way to "review" the deletion with other uninvolved admins, but it's usually best to go with the original deleting admin first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The original issue was a CSD of a similarly titled article in mainspace, promulgated by someone who has not been involved with Mahesh to the best of my knowledge. PMDrive1061 deleted that per the CSD request and then deleted the userspace page as there was a dependency (CSD G8). I agree that it was an unusual step but reverting the userspace page deletion should not be a problem. I never even saw the mainspace page but the effect of deletion was that umpteen other redlinked lists that Mahesh had created became even more broken than they already were. It wouldn't surprise me if there was an element of people running out of patience - some others who were involved have certainly expressed that sentiment subsequently.

To be honest, given that Mahesh had not sought the advised consensus prior to embarking on a multitude of edits in mainspace (and the userspace page was a minor element in that scheme), I wouldn't be too fussed about it. I regret to say that I have felt pretty uncomfortable about a lot of recent events regarding Mahesh but still believe that his inability or unwillingness to really listen to the several other editors made a bad situation much worse. He announced a wikibreak almost straight after reporting me at AN/I. I do hope that it is not permanent but he does need to learn a bit about collaboration.

I'm afraid that I have spent much of my Wiki time today running round in circles regarding Mahesh-based issues, This means that I have not progressed the Tamil Kshatriya sources review which I was intending to do. Normal service tomorrow, hopefully. - Sitush (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna's message on his talk page about what to do after returning is a good one, matching up with your comments about collaboration here. Regarding your work, I think this message often gets lost. When a user insists on a go-it-alone, gung-ho approach, especially when they engage in rapid actions, the efforts of other editors get diverted into being certain that the changes are happening appropriately and often fixing them. Like in the case of the school splits, not only was it necessary for him to get consensus prior to splitting, but the initial splits without attribution break the license and start throwing up all sorts of copyright flags.

In a certain sense, Mahesh is right, in that we are "missing" a very large number of articles that we "should" have, not just on Indian villages, but on all sorts of topics about India and other under-served countries. And, in a certain sense, it's not "fair"--back when en.wiki started, it was okay to start all sorts of articles in any sad state, with the idea that they would eventually be improved. India (et al) now come in when the 'pedia is at a different stage--when articles now have to enter mainspace at a certain minimum level. The problem is, that Mahesh's "solution" (essentially, arguing that correcting systemic bias trumps other concerns) isn't broadly accepted by the community.

I foresee us having more and more problems like this, as natives of countries like India become more involved editing. As we've discussed before, knowledge is constructed in different ways in different countries and at different times, and Wikipedia's definition of knowledge isn't actually compatible with other types. This is the same "problem" faced by teachers (like myself) of non-native English speakers who have been raised with fundamentally different ideas about collaboration, plagiarism, knowledge, problem-solving, education, etc., etc.

Can Mahesh be a productive member of the community? It seems plausible, but I'm not sure. The question I was pondering this morning is--is xe learning from xyr mistakes? That is, when xe stopped the POV pushing regarding corruption topics, is that because xe understood NPOV, or because xe simply felt xyrself blocked in that area, so xe turned to a new area, wherein xe encountered new problems?

Anyway...enough waxing philosophical..it's already 10 am and I've hardly touched my watchlist...time to get back to our regularly scheduled program... Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I had no dealings with Anna prior to the Mahesh situation. Throughout the 24 hours or so she demonstrated a very measured judgement and a clarity of writing that really impressed me. You and her have very similar styles and I do wonder if you are both pro writers! - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna's awesome. I think the first time we worked together was dealing with a Korean POV pusher on Dog meat. Besides being extremely calm in a dispute, she makes a ton of new articles--not just stubs, but full fledged articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the kind words. But, I really didn't commit the amount of energy that you two did. You've really handled this matter well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dog meat

My apologies - was distracted & saw message "section blanking". Denisarona (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Fire-fighting

If you have the time even to review a couple of items on Anna's list at User:Anna_Frodesiak/Silver_sandbox then I think it would be appreciated. We all have better things to do than this, but it must be done. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My primary work computer is down, and I'm focused on fixing it right now. I may have time in a few days (or sooner, if I can fix that computer). Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty lucky for Friday the 13th. Consider it a blessing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Confession

Hi Qwyrxian,

I would like to apologise, because some time back when you were helping me i questioned your intentions. But later i have experienced your behavior is neutral and you try to look things judiciously. I was new to this part of Wikipedia, the talk pages, though i had been using Wikipedia for long time. The bigger problem seem to be the way, i am interacting on talk pages, then the kind of edits. Earlier when i was less active, there were no problems, but few days back when i got some time and tried to become active with contributions, problems started. I created stubs for villages in Haryana, India. It was my fault that they were unreferenced. I tried to improve and made some better police stubs, with official references. Later when i was creating Punjab villages stubs with references from govt site, i got my self blocked. The concern for others was the quantity of articles i was creating though at that time the quality was sufficient. Later my block was removed with a community ban to create new articles. All my contributions for last 5 years were scrutinized and problems from them were ratified. And it was tiresome work for some other experienced users. They got more annoyed with me. I feel i need to learn a lot how things work here. Now i think it would be better if i become less active, improve quality of articles created by me when time permits, avoid mass stub creation. I would like to thank you for the guidance. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the quality was not sufficient and you were told of this. The police articles, for example, were much more of a mess than you would admit to until I forced the issue, at which point it became obvious that something like 90% of the information you had entered was incorrect. You really are still not getting it. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, can you either point me to an example or the discussion regarding the police articles showing that they were wrong, or at least explain to me what was wrong about them?

Mahesh, I am also concerned that your message here may come too late, but I haven't given up all hope yet. At the moment, the best thing you can do is wait and respond to any direct questions that people ask either on ANI or on your talk page. I'm still trying to gather more clarification after my short absence. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the police articles discussion is, like many others regarding Maheshkumaryadav, rather scattered. The bit that demonstrates the issue I refer to starts at User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Archive_1#Explain_abbreviation and runs on into the section following. There was stuff before that, and there is stuff after it also, but for the purposes of demonstrating my comment above about the articles not being "sufficient", I think that this area is the relevant bit. For the record, I was slightly surprised when PMDrive1061 hit the nuke button and the Punjab village articles went, as it was my opinion that these did at least have a reference. He subsequently nuked the other village stubs (472 of them, less the three that had been PRODed) & this was IMO the right move. As far as the Punjab stuff goes, well, I must admit to not being sad to see them go - for reasons that have been elucidated by Anna in her response to you on her talk page - but if you want me to seriously put myself on the line then I suppose that they were at the minimum of acceptable standard even if created is a very misconceived manner. You will be aware, also, that there is a real issue of trust regarding Indian government website articles, which were the source for this. Good faith says that you have to accept a country's government as being correct ... but we all know that often they are not and in cases such as this they are in fact unbelievably unreliable. No offence to anyone from India, but for a country that produces such fantastic contributors to the IT industry it continues to surprise me just how incredibly poor their official government websites are, both in design and in content.

Back to the police articles. What happened was that Mahesh was firefighting some concerns that had arisen before my involvement. He created one article on a police force, on which PMDrive and others complimented him as part of the process of trying to ameliorate "damage" and encourage good habits. Unfortunately, Mahesh then cloned that article for a further 20 police forces, changing little more than the reference and the police force name. This process inevitably produced all sorts of discrepancies, which is where I stepped in with my queries as noted in the sections linked to above. The end result, since Mahesh seemed not to be interested in fixing the issues himself, was that I cut them back. The infoboxes themselves were actually removed by me after Mahesh announced that he was taking a wikibreak (it is documented in his TP archive): since it seemed that he was going to be at least temporarily no longer around, there seemed little option other than to remove dodgy content. It could always be added back.

As you are aware, there is another Indian article on which I really need to spend some time. That has gone on the backburner as a consequence of recent events. I made the decision to prioritise and therefore it is my "fault". However, if Mahesh had actually taken on board, at umpteen different stages, the view of the community then this farrago could have been long done and dusted. In particular, the latest series of issues is because he keeps moving the goalposts: promising to abide by X, and then straight away running off on some renegade mission. I do not understand this and it is the prime cause, I feel, of most of the bad faith that now exists towards him. It is all extremely unfortunate, but I have to be honest and say that I simply cannot trust him to be collaborative any more. And that is something which I cannot recall ever saying previously.

Here endeth the essay. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't want you to put anything on the line for a group of stubs. I may be willing to do so myself, but I'm still working on it. I've asked for PMDrive's comments, which is the key first step. Thank you for the input on the police articles. I recalled the discussion, but not the details. That is, definitely, a problem. However, my main concern here is that if Mahesh is learning, albeit extremely slowly, then it seems odd to jump to a ban. If this can be solved in some other way, it seems like it should be. This is something I'm risking entirely on my own, and I don't mind if you and Anna think I'm nuts or oppose any such suggestion. Also, I'm trying to work through the Silver Sandbox; anything I don't comment on seems fine to me, but I am recommending slightly different courses on a few articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I respect your judgement, always have. I am also grateful for any comments which you may make. In particular, input on the sandbox stuff is invaluable. It was publicised, several times, but the workload has fallen mostly on two people and further input is always beneficial. A "consensus" of 2 is not great. And, for the record, I don't think that there are many people whom I would think are nuts, although some may appear to me to be contrary. You are neither. This is a complete mess and anything, anything at all, that might persuade me to reconsider is much welcomed. I am not a fan of disputes and have rarely participated in AN/I discussions. I remain open to thoughts/suggestions/opinions but would point out that there are numerous other people involved who have not expressed an opinion at AN/I but have done so elsewhere, eg: User:Elen of the Roads. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the more recent examples of what Anna has called incorrigibility is M's statement here that the article creation ban was because of his Punjab stubs. He has got the timing all wrong: the ban was imposed subsequent to those but the consensus was already, by a wide margin, in place and he had been urged to desist from creating those articles until matters were resolved. Given past tendencies, I really do not think that this was an issue of miscommunication: Mahesh has demonstrated that he is more than capable of utilising the English language. There are many other examples of what, for want of a better word, I will call "duplicity", ie: presenting evidence in a way which distorts the truth and which appears possibly to be done deliberately with that intent. Good faith only stretches so far. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to iterfere but may I ask has the wikipedia community concluded that websites of Indian governments are not reliable sources.If it is so we may need to visit many pages and find alternative sources. I created two stubs this weekend with references taken from Indian government websites. I would be interested to know so that these stubs do not land on chopping board.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a detailed critique of them. I did not say that Wikipedia has concluded that they are unreliable, but there appear to be plenty of editors who have come to the conclusion that care is required. Broken links galore, contradictory information and use of copyrighted materials without acknowledgement are just three common issues. They are sometimes quite difficult to use (eg: a large number of them were blocked to non-Indian users recently, until I contacted the relevant state govt/NIC and pointed out the issue). Of course, as government productions they will always be reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense, even though individual judgements may be applied. There was an issue with one of Maheshkumaryadav's uses, which I think he later agreed was an issue, and as another example there has been a recent problem at Paravar (an article which I practically rewrote) where a Bihar govt site put the same caste in two different parts of the OBC schedules, on different pages and without date(s). They have to be treated with care, in my experience, but cannot be ignored. Hope this clarifies. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Answers and willingness to improve

I have answered to the questions on my talk page and will be working to improve under your mentor-ship. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC) And i would like to promise that i will 100% work i a way to prove myself a good student. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mahesh

I blew up with him earlier, then walked away for a bit & drank a few gallons of herbal tea. I've got real doubts that your proposal can be made to work but if it fails then it will not be because of any action of yours. So, I've added my support. I must be delusional; you must be a masochist! Just don't tolerate any shenanigans (procedural ones, in particular) because I have a feeling in my waters that they are going to happen ... or is that just the tea? - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See next section Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Two small comments

I just wanted to say a couple of quick things unrelated to one another:

• It seems that a fair chunk of M's copyvios appeared when copy/pasting text from another article. A previous editor was responsible. M had ultimate responsibility, but didn't actually do the crime. (However, this was not always the case.) This should indicate that this is the tip of the iceberg with respect to India-related articles, and the mount of copyvios therein.

• There is a big difference in reading a talk page and seeing a stream of concerns and peas from other editors, and being there at the time. The difference is that we plead, waited, then edits ignoring us, then more pleas, more edits, then more posts urging him to stop. That's sort of invisible just looking at the talk. There is the illusion that we all dumped the warnings at once. Just letting you know that that's the way it went. Best wishes and good luck. M: If you're reading this, please listen to Q, and please check over your work for little mistakes.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your points, Anna, are quite valid. As I've talked with Sitush, while the current wikimedia outreach to india is necessary, it brings a whole set of complications that I don't believe have been considered, relating do very fundamental cultural differences about what constitutes knowledge (oral, mythic, scientific, etc.), what counts as providing info and what is copying, and even styles of dispute engagement.

Regarding Mahesh...I'm still mulling over the issue. The "99% of my edits were policy compliant" claim at ANI bother me. A lot. That suggests that this may simply be impossible. If I go forward, I'll have to draft up the language formally; I'm still thinking it through. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've slept and the pain in my chest has subsided, so it wasn't the beginnings of another MI. I shall apologise properly to Mahesh for a couple of my comments yesterday, which even though qualified were definitely over the mark. Continuing to edit in order to distract myself was not, I think, the most wise course.

What amazes me right now is he has had a few days during which he could have been demonstrating actively that he wants to collaborate by, eg, fixing some of the problems in Anna's list. He has, IIRC, in fact only done so when prompted by me and indeed has spent most of his time either on talk pages (perhaps understandable) or playing around with the structure of his userspace. Then, when he has responded to a suggestion that some fixing be done, he has made a right hash of it. This is someone who has been here for a while, is clearly capable of understanding policy/guideline pages when it suits him, but still cannot (apparently) grasp the basics of WP:N, WP:CITE etc. Sure, there may be a cultural issues involved here, and Qwyrxian is correct to highlight those, but I do know editors from that area of the world who are more than capable of doing this and Maheshkumaryadav is definitely not a person lacking in mental capability. It is most peculiar and I cannot make my mind up whether this mentorship will be easy (because he is in fact clever) or difficult (because he appears to be, fundamentally, intransigent).

Anna, the CCI will resolve the copyright issues in due course. I filed it because of discussions with User:Elen of the Roads & User:Anthony Bradbury, which basically said that doing so would protect your back regarding the silver sandbox. If Mahesh had created his new pages with consensus and had attributed anything he copy/pasted from other pages then perhaps a lot of the apparent vios would not be visited upon him now. "Less haste, more speed", is a UK saying that may have equivalent elsewhere in the world. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. Looks like someone may be lining up some new articles for creation/forking here. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For your own sanity/health, you may want to not monitor what new actions he's taking so closely. If xe wants to make suggestions to the Wikiproject, there's no real harm; since xe can't create any articles now anyway, some other editor would have to take responsibility for them. However, should mentorship be entered, we'll definitely be having a conversation about the right time to split. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but the reason for monitoring is because he ignores consensus & is wandering around making these edits when he could be improving the existing stuff, as has been suggested to him by several people. I wouldn't bank on him not creating articles, regardless. He has just proposed a whole series of recently deleted forks for re-creation on the Chandigarh portal. Recreating a recently deleted article is almost always a no-no, if I recall correctly. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See Also links on Dog meat

The meats I have listed are viewed in similar/logical consequence here in American culture, and in readership of English Wikipedia, namely American people typically find consumption of the following meats: cat, dog, horse among various others as unusual or even immoral. I understand your need to maintain a certain level of white pride and Asian cultural-secessionism, and make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas cat and horse meat the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians and that of non-Asians is far less. But this is nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits, or the eating habits of American's closest ally nations should be seen. The inclusion of horse meat in the See Also section constitutes a consistent American reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine, and not feel humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for some of you to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at the article's talk page, and reverted your edit to the article. Please do not edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article idea for M

M likes to make articles. Maybe there is some really cool India-related subject. Something that would really fascinate readers, that would DYK easily, that could include photos, history, diagrams, etc. I've spent many months in India, and I know for sure that every second you see something amazing. There's no shortage of subjects. For example, what if M found some product that is made, or process, or industry, or subculture, etc., that he could research, photograph, etc.?

He could take time preparing it in a nicely coloured sandbox, and then let it loose, (with your approval). It might just turn out to be the cure for what ails us all. What sayeth thee? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. I'll propose it to him once I get the formal stuff taken care of. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Media bias in India

I've got myself in a pickle with procedure by not opening a discussion about Media bias in India on the article talk page. I didn't realise that it would become quite as lengthy an analysis of possibilities as it has in fact become. I have informed MKY, as the article creator, and Anna because she had commented at Silver about it. I am informing you as probable mentor.

Right now, the discussion is at User_talk:Sadads. I'm wondering about asking whether it would be ok to paste it verbatim to the article TP. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My first quick recommendation is to copy and paste the discussion to the talk page, with a header line that says something like "The following conversation about this article began at User talk:Sadads; I'm moving it here to get the input of more editors." As for the details of the article itself...breakfast first, then I'll take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy your breakfast & take time to digest (the food, although I suppose the talk page thread also). I am off to bed. I am more than happy to see the conversation copied over & would have added an intro similar to that you mention. I did not actually do so because Sadads might think otherwise, it is his talk page & it looked as if he was offline. He also probably has quite a lot on his own (non-breakfast) plate due to his current RfA. As I said, this is a bit of a mess, of my own making. I have made a couple of poor procedural calls over the last few days but the good news is that I still think I'm a net positive on that score! But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? FWIW, Sadads has raised some interesting points and I'm learning from them, - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you Peruvian-Jewish too?

Hi there, could you go and check this at Elen's talk page, I think you are quite right and something should be done. The problem for me is that this user is a prolific contributor of trivial or nonsensical material, so it is often ignored and people come along saying "hey , I have reformatted your category to respect WP:TITLE" without checking that the category should exist in the first place - Category:People_From_Atlin which has a grand total of 450 inhabitants! Atlin, that is, not the category ;-).

Also, it takes a huge amount of time to patrol, propose for deletion etc. (your proposal is still live, my two categories that I CSD'd with Twinkle are gone, baby, gone!). In the meantime, all this nonsense just sits there. I am not seeking to WP:FORUMSHOP or whatever they call it, I just feel that a few people should weigh in and say what they think.

And you're the closest thing I have to a Peruvian-Jewish wiki relative. A Canadian-Scottish-Polish-English person living in Thingummy Street, Camembert Town, Rather Nice Wine Really, France. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Peruvian-Jewish? Me? not so much, really....I didn't reply before because I was waiting to see if Elen responds. I know she's quite busy on ArbCom, so I suspect it will take time; plus, I'm not so sure that there's much more for her to say than she already has. I guess a relevant question is--is anything Neptunekh2 doing productive? If it is, then we should be more inclined to just deal with the less useful stuff. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

See [2]. I hope this will help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, lets see if that helps. I don't actually encounter Neptukekh2 myself, since I'm not a reference/help desk watcher; she mainly pops up on my watchlist when I see her questions on user talk pages I watch. Hopefully there's a chance at least part of the message gets through. It was good to hear that some of her work has been valuable. It's always a lot easier to cut people slack when at least part of what they do is helpful. Heck, that's how some of our best content creators get away with being some of our worst behaving contributors. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If either of you is still watching this, see the bottoms of my talk page: In this case, Neptunekh2 did ask only 1 place (the Help Desk), was told she needs to ask on the article talk page, and then came here. She did also post on one of the article talk pages in question....I don't know what will happen if we just keep working that way: No, you need to ask there, no, we can't answer because you've already been answered, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Linwood Pendleton

The DYK project (nominate) 17:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Merges

Hi, I know that you have proposed a few merges in your time, and certainly more than I have. I always find it a ridiculously complex process and I did note your recent (very valid) point about how they can tend to get forgotten about by the proposer. Are they really as complex to propose as I think or could it be that I am going about it in the wrong way? I've always followed the instructions in the article on the subject. There are several suggestions for merges in the Silver sandbox at present but I keep putting off sorting the things out. I'm not suggesting that you should do these but just curious about methodology. Eg: is there some sort of tool that could be used, akin to Twinkle or whatever? - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it is a pain, and, as far as I know, no automated tool to do it. I do the same as you: following the procedures there by starting the discussion on the target page and add templates to both pages. I've just finally managed to remember the template formatting so that I don't have to look it up every time. One thing that I think is particularly important is to get the "discuss" parameter right: both discussion parameters should point to the merger section on the talk page of the target article--that way, discussion is more likely to be centralized rather than spread across the 2 pages. If there's some where discussions aren't started yet, let me know and I can work them up--if other things (like work) don't interrupt, I can do each one in about 10 minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

10 minutes is about my time also, so no worries. I'll try to sort them out tomorrow. I'll leave the Chandigarh Capital Region ones for now, pending some sort of consensus regarding whether or not the region has any real significance as an entity. Of course, the other problem with mergers is that they tend often not to get discussed much after being proposed, hence they then fall of the radar of even the proposer. I'll have to dig about to find more regarding this, eg: there much be a category that can be examined & which articles are automatically placed in as a consequence of the subst in the proposal. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

2 Things to discuss

1. I think the birth date of Cordelia_Chase from Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(TV_series) and Angel_(TV_series) should be added in her article. I know she 21 in the episode of angel Birthday_(Angel). So her birthday must be January 14, 1981. 2. The age of Chibiusa of Sailor_Moon in the manga should be mentioned in her article. I found a source that talks about her different ages in manga: Chibiusa goes through several different designs in the manga as she grows up, but she's almost always wearing some school uniform or another. She's also unusually short for her age, a point that you notice when she hangs around with anyone from her class. When Chibiusa first shows up she's in fourth grade at Juuban Elementary. During the Death Buster's arc she's elected class president of the fifth grade, and at the beginning of the Galaxia arc she and Hotaru are both in sixth grade (classes 1 and 3, respectively). Here's the source: http://www.chibimoon.net/mangaforms.html Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but you were already answered on the Help Desk. You need to discuss #1 at Talk:Cordelia Chase and #2 at Talk:Chibiusa. I know nothing about these topics, so I'm really not much help. Once you receive an answer, you need to follow those instructions. I see that you have already added a question to Talk:Cordelia Chase. You will have to wait to see if someone responds--it may take a few days. If no one responds then you should make the edit (but, of course, don't do it if someone says no). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your message

Please don't template warnings to established editors. For info, I removed a bad tempered and ill judged comment of mine, after I decided it was better removed and restored the narrative. I can remove my comments if I so wish. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read my note, you'll see that I didn't template you--I hand wrote the note myself. You are correct that it is technically allowed to remove your own posts, but, per WP:REDACT, it's best not to. In any event, it's all past now, so no big deal. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)