User talk:Qwyrxian

An exceptionally simple theory of everything

Did an edit of the lede and Chronology of An exceptionally simple theory of everything. Would be great if you could give it a look and comment.-Scientryst (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested on the talk page, on the issue of the phrase "called 'E8 Theory'" vs "referred by the author as 'E8 Theory'."-Scientryst (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your search on google scholar was too quick and without the quotation marks E8 theory lisi -> "E8 theory" lisi. Of course there is a lot of entries with E8+theory+lisi, given that he talks about a theory, uses e8, and his name is lisi. Results change drastically if quotation marks are used (and also if lisi is dropped). But to me still the page is becoming again too Lisi-centric and there is too much Lisi-opinions in it instead of just Lisi-theory. Please read the short response I wrote on the page. I don't think that it should be a big deal if we say "referred sometimes as" or "informally called" or things like that. Thanks! 67.172.180.199 (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Physics

Qwyrxian: Response to everything here. You asked for criticisms of your definition. You've provided the criticisms yourself. Your definition is, precisely that: your definition. You've shown us that, in fact, it does not match the definitions found in reliable sources. If you want to write a research/philosophy paper arguing that the definition of physics commonly used in textbooks, dictionaries, etc. is wrong, feel free to do so, and then seek a place to publish it (whether that's self-publishing on the internet, in a philosophy of science journal, in a book, whatever). However, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought/research. We can and will only write what reliable sources have said, not what we ourselves think is "good" or "true". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC

I'll fix it all.

Qwyrxian: Please don't remove talk page comments, even your onw--it disrupts the conversation (it makes my response make much less sense)

Saeed:

I didn't remove anything in my recent edit. I made the intermediate part hidden (because It was wrong and I was fixing it) and moved the last part to this page

I'm not removing anything from other users. The long subjective part is fully and carefully in the user's talk pages.(Example) and the compact objective part is linked to talk:Physics; because that's what all the people taking part in the discussion agree upon. Please allow me to remove and correct my own mistakes. This will allow all of us to reach a final best decision, and reduce the time necessary to do it.

Qwyrxian: First, you're not allowed to remove my response, period (which you did, perhaps by mistake). Then, the problem is that if you take all of that out, it makes my response look like I'm holding you accountable for something you didn't do, which is quite unfair to my comment. How about this: put the part of your comments that you don't think are relevant any more into a collapse box (see Template:Collapse top), or strike through the parts of your text you no longer hold as necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Saeed: Yes I did all the mistakes you mentioned. Even more:

• I saved my progress before I finish it and caused so much disturbance to you.
• I assumed talk pages are editable just like an article.
• I didn't read all the Wikipedia rules before editing talk pages
• I wasn't familiar with the wiki culture, and your interests and the way you might interpret all this.
• What I write there is just wrong.

I had ten years of elaborate work in my "not so free" time and I have come up with a solution. That's in my mind. and it takes effort to put it into actions.

But I still need you, your advice, your support, and your trust. here is my problem: I like to see Physics has become a good article. So I must copy-edit it. since the definition does not allow it, I must correct it. Since I'm not allowed, I must discuss it. While I'm learning how to do it, I must also learn to use the talk page. While doing that, I must move between different users' talk page. the mistakes I make, can cause reverts and edit wars in the talk page that I must resolve. and now I'm out of energy.

Much worse frustrating stuff exists for admins.

Suggestion:

1. I terminate this and get retired for two to six more month
2. During this time, You gain trust about my Science knowledge and skill in Physics. you also find out if I am acting according to the four pillars of Wikipedia. I can help that by providing personal info and evidence.
3. Then you give me the go and I Seriously start improving the article Physics with full discussions in user talk pages, until I fix every problem there.
4. I will also obey every each of your commands.
5. Meanwhile you support me by allowing to act according to fifth pillar. that is (1) Notifying me about the mistakes I make meanwhile. I'll correct them on schedule. (2) supporting my against ban and revert by other admins, by assuring them that you are watching my every edit and mistake.

In short: You'll be the Wiki specialist, I'll be the Physics specialists. this will unite us; and together, we respond to criticism from other users. If they are right, we will correct the mistakes. and if they are wrong, we will notify them.

If we succeed, we can improve a lot of top priority articles to a state they deserve. --Saeed 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwirxian: First, there's no need to retire. In fact, if you're actively working on this, you should do the work on wiki. Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively; you shouldn't think of it as a process you have to or should complete all on your own. Now, there's nothing wrong with working offline, or working in a sandbox or talk page, if you think that the work you're doing takes time. But, know that, in the end, all changes you want to make will inevitably be altered, reverted, or otherwise changed by other editors over time. You can go ahead and start making changes to Physics right now. Ultimately, other users will trust you based on your conversations on talk pages and your editing behavior. Regarding your fourth and fifth points, there's no need to "obey my commands"; rather, I'm just pointing out to you the rules as I interpret them--I'm not even always right. In this case, regarding talk page changes I am :), but I'm not right every time, nor do I have any authority to command you to do something. Rather, all I wanted to do was to point out to you one of the rules regarding talk pages; now you understand, so now we're all happier. On your fifth point specifically, however, I won't stand as a defense between you and other admins, nor am I allowed to even if I want to. I am happy to provide you with any and all advice that you need, answer your questions regarding Wikipedia policy, etc. But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me." There is a formal process known as mentoring, but, even in that case, while the mentor can take on a more direct role and help act as a buffer, they can't ultimately prevent others' input.

So here's what I recommend. You start editing articles. Wherever, whenever you like. You may want to review some of our core policies first, I recommend the five pillars that you linked to above as a good start. Those aren't the only things that govern editing, but they are a good place to begin. When other editors revert changes you make (and I guarantee that they will, sometimes), talk it out on article talk pages. Whenever you have a question, ask me, and I'll try to help as much as I can.

One final hint: If you're trying to spend 2-6 months figuring out a basic definition, because you're trying to reason it out, think about the best possible choice of words, you're probably doing it wrong. That's the sort of thing you would do if you're trying to argue, from scratch, a new, original definition of physics, based on your analysis of the whole field. Instead, go with the closest, simplest amalgamation of standard definitions--that's the way to follow WP:OR and WP:V. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

And a question: do you want me to collapse that definition section on Talk:Physics? If it's still a work in progress, it's fine to just minimize it for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Saeed:

"there's no need to retire."

In fact there is. This is an open letter to the whole community. (The letter was moved to My Userpage in Strategy Wiki)

But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me."

So you have noticed how usually admins take "administrative actions against" users.

"If you're trying to spend 2-6 months figuring out a basic definition"

No, I was giving you 2-6 month to challenge my knowledge, and see if I really worth it.

"In this case, regarding talk page changes I am [right about the rules]"

Yes, you are. I thought talk pages are a place for collaborative work. but they more sound like a forum.

"And a question: do you want me to collapse that definition section on Talk:Physics?"

If collapse means delete, Yes please. because all the discussions exist here.

"If it's still a work in progress, it's fine to just minimize it for now."

Yes, it's still a work in progress. but this kind of work are prohibited in a talk page.

Qwyrxian: Well...I'm not sure I can help. I want to, but you're so fundamentally misunderstanding the Wiki process that it could be a challenge. You're focused on gaining and proving your physics knowledge. Wikipedia certainly values experts, but one never needs to be or prove that one is an effort prior to editing. Furthermore, being an expert doesn't give a person any special rights or privileges in determining Wikipedia content. Even if you were able to prove to me that your a highly respected, tenured researcher in Physics, that wouldn't actually make your opinion more necessarily "right". In fact, I edit far more articles that I don't have expertise in than those that I do. How can I do that? Because I read sources, and report what I read. That's really all Wikipedia is--a glorified summary of what others have written (this is because that's what all good encyclopedias are). So, I'm not going to spend any amount of time challenging your knowledge. Instead, make or propose changes to the article. If they seem like an improvement, they'll stay; if not, others will revert or change them, in which case you discuss those changes on the talk page. If that isn't how you're comfortable working, then, yes, you are correct that Wikipedia editing is not right for you.

By the way, the whole reason I want to not delete the talk page is specifically because it is a place for collaborative work. However, what I have done is archived that section manually--that way, no one has to worry about it any more. Please note, though, that your message at the top fundamentally misunderstands my point: in fact, I want you to keep correcting and collaborating on that definition--I just want you to do that by posting new messages, not by erasing old ones. You can keep working on a user's talk page, but please note that no matter how long you work there, eventually it will be up to a consensus of editors at the article itself to agree or disagree with any "results" you get. And, again, I'm just trying to help avoid you extra work, but the path you are going down now is one of original research, and is unlikely to be accepted. But what you do with your time is ultimately up to you. And if your decision is that you prefer editing Wikipedia to reading it, that's fine. If you wat to edit, and you need help, I am always willing to answer questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Saeed: I've made yet another GREAT mistake. I've posted to your talk page, what belongs to the strategy wiki. This is no place to criticize Wikipedia. And there was no need to explain why I must retire, or to reply everything!

" The path you are going down now is one of original research"

No. You notified me and I stopped. But when I wanted to correct myself, you said, no correction in the talk page. So I asked you to delete it. see? no original research.

"If you wat to edit, and you need help, I am always willing to answer questions."

Thats a lot of help :-)

Improving the article "Physics"

Question) How can I improve Physics to the state of a good article? I know what a good article is. and I've red the peer review.

Question) Can you please add Physics to your watchlist? so that you can notify me about my mistakes?

Question) Whenever I get reverted, I am somehow prohibited from editing an article anymore.

08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: The peer review really is the key. I think that the first thing to focus on is sourcing--the reviewer was right--a lot of the article is under or unsourced. No article will ever get to GA status unless all of its major and most of its minor claims are sourced (outside of the lead). I would definitely start there, because until you know what content will or won't be there, you can't worry about all the other stuff, like layout, reference formatting, stec. The article is already on my watchlist. I don't pay too much attention to it, but if you post specific concerns on the talk page, I'll do my best to address them. On your last point, I don't understand. When you are reverted, you can always keep editing the article. Now, that doesn't mean that you can just keep editing it in the same way. Basically, if the person gave a specific reason for the revert in an edit summary, its up to you to bring the issue to the article's talk page and then discuss it. I've had edits that have taken months to work on with other editors due to disagreements. This may, in fact, can be one of the difficulties in reaching GA status; if there are a lot of editors with disagreements about how to manage the article, it can take a while to sort those out. Sometimes it's actually impossible, though I'm not sure if physics is controversial enough for that to happen. As I said, I'll try monitoring the process. One final thing I do recommend: don't change too much too quickly. If you alter the entire text in one series of edits, it's very likely that the whole thing will end up reverted because people disagree with individual parts. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Saeed:

"it's very likely that the whole thing will end up reverted because people disagree with individual parts."

Oh no! I completely copy-edited Physics#History and Physics#Relation to other fields. I'll keep in mind from now on. But can you have a look at these two?

"I think that the first thing to focus on is sourcing"

Thanks. I'm on it.

--Saeed 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwirxian: Well, I took a look at it briefly, and parts concern me. Some of the tone is off (too conversational), and it definitely needs a good copy edit (there are a number of grammatical errors and typos). I'll try to get to it if I have time, but it's not a high priority for me right now. Hopefully other editors will join. I did, however, leave a comment about images on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Saeed: I added a lot of reference and asked someone to copy-edit Physics#Relation to other fields. Grammar ans spelling also rechecked.

Question) I wrote the first letter in the names of science fields like Math and Physics in CAPITAL letters. is it necessary? correct? wrong? I asked others too. they didn't know.

--Saeed 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A newcomer (CaptainScreebo): Saeed while appreciating that you have a lot of enthusiasm for the subject and, quite possibly, a lot of knowledge, I would suggest that you make major edits/improvements(?) to the article in your userspace and ask someone to verify them there before sending them live. I have just spent the afternoon copyediting the small section, Physics#History, that you copyedited. I initially was going to reply to you about CAPITALS, see my edits or this article; disciplines, theories or beliefs do not take capitals unless they are at the beginning of the sentence (first word) or they contain someone's name, e.g. Newton's constant. To copyedit correctly:

• you need to understand some basic rules, like the one above;
• also you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source for itself;
• you need to learn how to format refs properly (see the talk page for two refs I removed as they just referred back to the article itself);
• it would be good to read the articles that connect to your subject to try to have the same tone, facts and so on;
• if you make a list and then bullet point it, the headings of your (bullet-pointed) list should match those that you have mentioned just beforehand and so on.

Please do not make further edits to this page without discussing here or on the talk page, and I would strongly advise you to make a draft in your userspace first. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy closing of AfDs

I have in the past seen instances where people have proposed "speedy closing" of an AfD. Is this ever in fact a possibility? Or is the de facto minimum seven day discussion period always applicable? I have been involved in one today where it is clearly a malicious nomination, including confirmed socks etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage stalker here. It is possible to speedy keep an article if the nomination is in bad faith (eg made a week after the last AFD closed, made by a sock of a banned user), or if the nominator withdraws. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so in this case Green Leaves, I don't believe that the AfD should be closed, as the master was the one who opened it. However, I will go and strike out those votes. For some reason, the master wasn't blocked; I'm going to review policies, but if I remember correctly, I'm going to be blocking them as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It is now (slightly) more clear! Q, I think backlogs might explain the delay in blocking. It is a rather unfortunate situation and I may not have handled it brilliantly, although it has drifted over several pages & there has been little response to my communications other than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. EoR, speedy keep is indeed what I meant - still getting to grips with the nomenclature! I am still unsure why a master who immediately socks to assist their aim justifies keeping the nomination open but, hey, with my record I am never going to be in a position of having to worry about the technicalities & burdens of adminship. I will just keep asking awkward questions. Think of it as a test! - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked Atterion for a week (i.e., past the duration of the AfD). I'll put that AfD on my watchlist. However, I am bringing the block to WP:AN for review, because policy is intentionally unclear on the subject. Also, could you please point me to the place where you Atterion said that xe has a COI with respect to the property? You mention it at the AfD, but I don't see it at Talk:Green Leaves. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Sadads#Moving_pages. It has been a bit of a mess. I have tried communicating on the article talk page, on the talk page of Sadads, on mine and on theirs. Plus the edit summaries etc. I seem to recall checking how "new" the contributor was and deciding that they should be aware of edit summaries, but right now I cannot do that because the toolserver query seems to be timing out & has been for most of the last 24 hours at least. (I believe that there may be an issue with the disk arrays?) My involvement in the article started as a consequence of the message left at Sadads' page + some past (unfortunate) involvement in the long-running saga that is Doncram. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Sitush#Construction_date - thread on my talk page. Let me know if you need elucidation. I can help you with that, but if you need a beer for hallucination then you are on your own - too far away. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now this is getting silly, sorry. It is twice this week so far that I know someone has used a certain word/phrase. To find it I have to dig through hundreds of diffs using their contribution history. Is there not a shortcut search facility for this, bearing in mind that I am so dense that I cannot recall whether it is in userspace, articlespace etc? Some sort of search mechanism would at least cut out all the "I'm an online"/"I am offline/what a nice day it is" and other trivia far faster than my brain can do it. All I am looking for is "visit" and/or "tour". - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, not that I know of. Wikipedia's search function, is, frankly not useful for those types of things. It can help you find the closest matching article, but not much beyond that. I also have a devil of a time trying to find past examples of things. I usually use hand searches--looking back at my own contributions, guessing who or where something may have been said and checking histories there, etc. If any of my Stalkers know of a better way to search, I'd love to hear it, too. When I prepped the RfC/U I filed, it basically involved re-reading tons of pages of talk page discussions, user talk, etc., just to find the things I was sure I had read, somewhere, at some point. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Would be a good feature, eh? Atterion has I think edited while logged out at least a couple of times (can't prove it, obviously, and it would have been accidental on their part) & so perhaps it happened under an IP user name. Am off to bed, so people will just have to AGF regarding my report of the claim to visit each year to conduct tours. It is quite a remarkable building, by all accounts. If you can think of some subject here that I can work on in peace then let me know. All this drama is arrrgh! I am getting fed up of seeing my name at various noticeboards, and I am certain that other people are also. I am doing something wrong. - Sitush (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not wrong...you're just getting involved in contentious topics--some on purpose, like the caste articles, some on accident, like Green Leaves. One thing you may want to do, that I do myself, is to be careful what comments you leave while stalking. That's often where i get myself involved in contentious stuff. Thus is not to say that you can't/shouldn't help other editors, but that you should do so with the assumption that you're about to get dragged into a problematic issue. Which may mean either completely passing or being clear that you're just leaving a quick note; that way, you don't get sucked into too many things at once. I myself am not entirely sure what to do; I've already been on WP for about 2 hours this morning, and I still haven't finished covering changes that have occurred on my watchlist since yesterday, much less actually going and doing forward progress on my own personal backlog... Oh, if you want a subject you can work on in peace, you're probably safe working on nearly any of the zillions of living being stubs--pick a random mollusk, or butterfly, or bacteria stub; odds are pretty good it's a stub. No promises you can find reliable sources, though. Another thing that you could probably do and be fairly safe is to pick a fairly innocuous topic and start with a source, rather than an article. For example, pick up a good reference book on British food and then just see what interesting things from that book could go into some WP article somewhere (or even add new articles). Although, I guess British food isn't innocuous, because you'll probably end up in some sort of a fight with editors who insist that a certain dish originated in Wales, while another insists it originated in Ireland...but I think you catch my drift. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

British food is highly contentious. Or, at least, I can guarantee that it will be if I put my toe in that water. Trouble follows me around, although I do take your point. The gap between trying to help and getting drawn in can be extremely narrow. Green Leaves went from a couple of sentences to something slightly more substantial, using sources that are technically reliable even though I do not like them ... but the hassle for such a little thing has been rather silly & perhaps I should just walk away and let someone else fix the obviously incorrect. I think that Anna F has suggested molluscs to me in the past, so there may be a meeting of great minds going on here.

When I was a kid a neighbour who was old when WW2 kicked off (or so it seemed to me then, at any rate) gave me the most useful piece of food/cooking advice ever to come out of Lancashire: "when it's brown, it's done; when it's black, it's buggered". (Buggered is in the Brit slang sense of "useless", "beyond repair or redemption" etc ... not the legal sense!). Now, two sheep, perchance two bream. Have fun catching up on the backlog. It is fruity at Kurmi, so you may wish to avoid that one. - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

AIV report regarding Windsor University School of Medicine

Hi - Just saw that you considered the issues on the article to be a content dispute. I had the exact same situation on Caribbean Medical University a few days ago, and User:Orlady saw it as vandalism, because an SPA account with a WP:COI issue is persistently blanking verified, sourced information that is negative about his school and replacing it with an ad. Your thoughts on why it is not vandalism? Thanks. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 04:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Different admins make different calls, plus it may be that the circumstances are not identical. If you want, I can always block both of you, because you're both edit warring, and neither of you is vandalizing. This is a content dispute--one of you thinks the information is appropriate and the other does not. While I actually do think one of you is right, I'm going to decline to get involved in the content dispute (for now) so that I can continue to act administratively. As you probably saw, I have just warned you for violating 3RR. Both of you need to stop edit warring and talk this out on the article's talk page, and use dispute resolution if necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Following up from your talk page, please note that I am explicitly telling you that this is not vandalism. Just because a piece of content has a citation attached to it does not mean that removing it automatically constitutes vandalism. Blanking only counts as vandalism when done without explanation, and SMGD1 has been explaining xyr reasons on your talk page. Again, take this to the article talk and work it out there. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps it needs to go to AN/I for a wider admin opinion. I have been dealing with WP:SPA WP:SOCKs for years. There is no reasoning with them and the talk page is not an option, since it will not be fruitful. In every case, the SPA's with huge WP:COI's have been blocked for disruptive editing, their edits being considered vandalism. There is even an ArbCom case on it regarding St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 04:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and take it to ANI. If you do, beware of WP:BOOMERANG, because my opinion is that neither of you is editing completely in compliance with our various policies. I am watching the page, so I'll be aware if more edit warring occurs (and will act accordingly); I will also try to help on the (hopefully forthcoming) talk page discussion by pointing out the relevant policy issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to discuss this further on the discussion page. I admit I am not an expert on all the WP editing policies so since you're an administrator - and have seen both our edits - if you could contribute something to the talk page with your suggestions I would appreciate it. Otherwise I think it might be difficult for Leuko and I to come to a resolution. SGMD1 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason you keep getting reverted by 5 different editors is that you are removing information in the article based on 10 different reliable sources due to a conflict of interest. That is not a content dispute - that is vandalism, which is why it keeps getting reverted. I agree whether a list of student clubs is encyclopedic content or not is a content dispute, but that is not the crux of the issue. We can discuss that if you want, but we can not discuss the wholesale deletion/whitewashing of the article of any verified negative information. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 05:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, please look at my comments on ANI. Leuko, as I stated there, I actually agree that the accreditation info not only could be removed, but that it must per WP:OR. In any event, both of you can now take this either to the article talk or to ANI rather than my talk page; I'm watching both. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't presume to know why other people are editing my changes. This article has a history of vandalism, and most edits, including yours, violate the neutral point of view rule. The negative information you refer to is not verified, and another admin User:Orlady already explained to you for a different article which you edited that such information is not relevant to a short encyclopedic entry for a university, especially if you delete basic sections about curriculum/tuition/student life. It appears you make defamatory edits for multiple institutions and since you attended a different medical school, your conflict of interest should be noted. SGMD1 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'd like you both to keep this discussion on the article talk page or ANI, since at this point it isn't about me. However, SGMD1, you need to dial back your tone. Your claim of NPOV violation is a bit strong, and using the word defamatory is definitely unacceptable. Finally, having attended a different medical school does not give one a conflict of interest. Otherwise, basically no one could ever edit anything (like, I currently live in Japan...does that mean I can't edit any articles on any countries?). COI means that you currently are in a relationship with the subject (business, personal, familial) that makes it impossible for you to edit neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll address this on AN/I. SGMD1 (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

hey buddy Im back

So whats up? U can never keep me down, I a G. You know this all could of been avoided if u left me alone and removed that CSD tag and didnt make a fuss, oh well live and learn 85.153.34.106 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

To other admins/editors: please leave this comment here, and do not semi-protect my page as long as the user does not move to more extreme disruption. If xe feels better complaining on my page, I don't mind for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much :)82.192.95.28 (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I though we were freinds now why did he undo it ur a backstabber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.7.59.229 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't tell him to undo it. But, honestly, your vandalism now bores me, so i had to throw the protection back up. I had hopes, but switching over to sex jokes is just amateur. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Prisoner merge

Do you think Prisoners' rights should be merged into Prisoner? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In an ideal encylopedia? No, because there have got to be hundreds of great, reliable sources on prisoners' rights. However, as it currently stands, yes, probably, since Prisoner's rights has no sources at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I could just source it. But, I thought of the merge, not because it was unsourced, but because it seemed like it would be an ideal section within Prisoner. I will propose the merge and see what the community thinks. Maybe dissenters will pop up and add sources or expand it to merit its stand-alone status. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, did you mean to zap the external links? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the horribly typo'd edit summary that said "also remove the bink linkfarm". Looking back at it more carefully, one or two of those may be legit; ACLU is usually credible, though I'm sure some would argue they fall under the prohibitions on highly biased sources. I'll raise the issue on talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I restored HRW and ACLU, and added Amnesty International and moved to ext links section. (Pls feel free to add/remove what you see fit). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

NTWICM vandalism

A few of us who edit the Now albums articles liked the idea of starting to use the {{tracklist}} template. It started with vol. 78, continued for 79, and another editor did vol. 77, with plans to do the others eventually. For some reason, this IP doesn't like it but refuses to discuss his reasons. He'll go through this rush of reverting these pages, while he gets warned and sometimes blocked, then comes back a few days later under a different IP to do it again. If there's a rangeblock that can be done to stop this, that would be great. Thanks for your help. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't know enough about rangeblocks yet to take on such a move. I'd recommend asking at ANI, once you've collected 4 or more that can give a good picture of what the exact range is. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I've seen those articles and similar types before. Why do they qualify for independent articles? Is each one actually separately notable per WP:NALBUMS? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

After I clicked submit, I realized that sounded harsher than I meant. I wasn't being accusing, but actually more asking; I presume that since we have so many of them that they qualify for some reason, but I couldn't figure it out just looking at them. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

LEUKO's violation of WP:OR

This is to report that the user LEUKO violates the WP:OR on several Caribbean medical schools pages by stating that the schools are unaccredited with providing material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which reliable published source exists. The following pages have been affected: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_University_School_of_Medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Medical_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalon_University_School_of_Medicine This action doesn't comply with the core content policies: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. You have shown a neutral point of view on ANI therefore I believe you can oversee the issue in order to come to a reasonable consensus. Thank you Rlewkowski (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I don't have time to look into the issue in detail, but will do so in the future. Also, I want to try to resolve the issue on Windsor first. If you haven't heard from me in a week, please leave me a reminder. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mere pretext

You may be unfamiliar with events of the Keichō era. In the following illustrative example, Ieyasu's complaint was about words in a unique context.

This anecdote has features in common with our discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Citation-supported introduction.

• January 15, 1602 (Keichō 7, 24th day of the 11th month): A fire at the Hōkō-ji temple complex in Kyoto was caused by careless workmen; and the Daibutsu-den was destroyed.

Temple bell at Hōkō-ji.

• November 15, 1610 (Keichō 15, 30th day of the 9th month): Toyotomi Hideyori sponsors work which is begun to rebuild the Hōkō-ji in line with the plans which his father had supported; and Hideyori also decides to order a great bell cast in bronze.

• August 24, 1614 (Keichō 19, 19th day of the 7th month): A new bronze bell for the Hōkō-ji was cast successfully -- see 19th century photo of Hōkō-ji belland see old photo of bell; but despite dedication ceremony planning, Ieyasu forbade any further actions concerning the great bell:

Inscription on bell at Hokoji in Kyoto

"[T]he tablet over the Daibatsu-den and the bell bore the inscription "Kokka ankō" (meaning "the country and the house, peace and tranquility"), and at this Tokugawa Ieyasu affect to take umbrage, alleging that it was intended as a curse on him for the character 安 (an, "peace") was placed between the two characters composing his own name 家康 ("ka-kō", "house tranquility") [suggesting subtly perhaps that peace could only be attained by Ieyasu's dismemberment?] ... This incident of the inscription was, of course, a mere pretext, but Ieyasu realized that he could not enjoy the power he had usurped as long as Hideyori lived, and consequently, although the latter more than once dispatched his kerei Katagiri Kastumoto to Sunpu Castle with profuse apologies, Ieyasu refused to be placated."

_________

_________

In other words -- in your words

1. What you're saying It "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that Ieyasu was over-reaching?
2. What you're saying It "isn't so much that the phrase itself is wrong," but that Ieyasu was "really blowing that phrase out of proportion"?

Aha, yes? --Tenmei (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands dispute

I am withdrawing from active participation in this subject.

Is it possible that my contributions are somehow "feeding" conflict?

One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while. --Tenmei (talk)

Talk:Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator#Bottleneck

Blackvisionit has resorted to personal attacks on Talk:Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator#Bottleneck. If you could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP ostensibly Blackvisionit has continued to accuse the editor he's involved in a dispute with of flaming and adding nonsense. [1] Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Eolai1 again

Hi Qwyrxian, since you took care of this user regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eolai1, can you look at User:99.41.49.246's contributions and make any applicable blocks / page protections? Thanks. ThemFromSpace 22:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point, it's too late to block the IP, as it may well have already been re-assigned. However, I have recorded the IP on the Sockpuppet Archive page; it may well be that there is a range here that can be blocked, but we'll need to see at least one more IP to check. As such, I'm not going to protect the page yet. That way, if Eolai1 does come back, we can see the new IP, and, if they're close, hopefully eliminate the problem with a longer rangeblock. If a rangeblock isn't possible, I will consider long term protection of the page. I'm not watching those pages, so please let me know if the same disruptive editing occurs. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to open up a dead thread, but Eolai1 got indeffed the other day and User:99.41.49.246 is back. This guy won't take a hint :\ ThemFromSpace 04:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks. If this keeps up, let me, I'll just semi-protect all of the relevant pages (it looks like there's only 5 or 6) for a long period of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor University School of Medicine

Hi there. I added an RfC to the Windsor University School of Medicine talk page and was wondering if you wouldn't mind adding your input. Thanks. SGMD1 (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP

There is a chance you may be interested in this [2]. There are hints of OR, POV, and COI, especially with [3]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrx, popped over to have a look, in fact there was a big copyvio, with the subject of the article adding three lines of text from a © publication which mentions him and his work, [4], I restored the last version before this addition.

In fact, this person does not appear to be notable, [5], there is a Microsoft products manager that gets (almost all) the hits. Article does not appear to qualify for CSD (A7) as it does sort of indicate why this person is significant. But I don't think they pass WP:GNG so over to you. Can you confirm that this wouldn't pass a CSD and does it need an AfD? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that having a book published that is available in at least 52 libraries (almost certainly more, since WorldCat isn't very connected across Asia, where presumably most of his books will be held) is a claim of significance, and thus the person is ineligible for A7.l As to whether or not it should be taken to AfD, probably a better guideline to look to than GNG is WP:PROF. At the moment I've got a ton of other stuff to look at first, so I invite either of you to do the necessary WP:BEFORE work to see if Shaw meets PROF, and, if not, AfD it. I'll put the article on my watchlist, though, especially in case the subject returns. One definite thing to check would be to see if there is any way we can take whatever was a copy-vio and re-write it as a source. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good, will try and read wp:prof soonish, have just spent the afternoon rewritng the mess good faith editing of your physics enthusiast above. Will add comments there. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is probably only one of the few biographies that Tenmei had put up. I saw him adding sources to SI dispute and this is the only one I clicked. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another [6]. Is he notable? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal Request

Dear Qwyrxian. Hi.

With your permission, I want to "move" that open letter to Wikimedia community to my user page on the strategy wiki, and replace it with something like: This part of this discussion have been moved to my startegy userpage. --~~~~

Can I? --Saeed 23:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Flipping ridiculous at Kurmi now

What is it with all this "I know it is no good but leave it in and I'll sort it out some time" stuff that is going on at Kurmi? I've just had to self-revert because I am concerned that I may be at 3RR but the entire article is becoming dragged down by ill-considered/half-cocked contributions. What are sandboxes etc for? Argh! - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Help in removal

Sorry for that alternate edit while checking Powerlife account status. This account is awaiting for removal - used during transition from it.wiki to en.wiki. If you own proper rights you could also help in removal speedup. Be sure that any editing in the floppy page is clearly performed as blackvisionit, since there's no prohibition to bypass while doing constructive/unbiased editing. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case, what will probably be done is that the Powerlife account will be blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet, and you'll be allowed to continue editing as Blackvisionit. Unless there's a specific reason why you still need two accounts (see WP:SOCK#LEGIT), in which case you'll need to link the two accounts with notes on the user pages (and usually the talk page of the "minor" account redirects to the main one). Your last 2 edits to that article were barely borderline acceptable, but only because of the long discussion that has occurred so far. In the future, you can't even make edits that allegedly match the consensus on the talk--you're not neutral enough even to judge when a consensus is reached. Again, just so we're clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account isn't needed any more. Doesn't removal need to be done by bureaucrats? PS: you're applying adminship beyond necessary, relax. We've already removed all disputed material. Enjoy article evolution if you're interested in the topic. Wikilove. Don't be absolute about your opinion on neutrality, take your time and apply good faith. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Accounts can't actually be deleted, because of attribution requirements. Instead, we'll just block the other account, and, if you want a record that you made those, just put a note on that account's talk page and your own indicating the (past) relationship. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite block is the needed action - with a 'Blocked indefinitely. Reason: required by user' comment. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so that I can be certain I wouldn't be blocking someone incorrectly, could you please log in to the Powerlife account, and post a note on that accounts talk page confirming that it belongs to Blackvisionit, that you do not need it as a secondary account, and that you want it blocked indefinitely? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Asked another admin (Gfoley4) to unblock my fixed IP 93.58.106.114 since it was also blocking me :) Blackvisionit (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please could you post an update about our settlement in this new flame opened by Guymacon? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Blackvisionit. Blackvisionit (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think through the block settings completely at first. As for the "settlement"...I've already said what's relevant at the SPI; the IP addresses are a separate issue, and should be considered on their own merit. I am concerned to see some of the IP editing, but I have no idea if it's yours or not. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about that IP flame, it's fiction. Another battle against windmills. Blackvisionit (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another 'solved statement' could be useful. Plus a strong WikiAhimsa recall. Blackvisionit (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Except I don't think it's solved. I want to see the CU evidence, and I want another admin to consider the IP evidence to see if they think it's quaking. And I have no idea what "WikiAhimsa" means. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Should a sock be quaking ? A Freudian slip there, perhaps? <g> - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just thought WikiAhimsa was as universal as wikilove. Here you are - M:WikipediAhimsa Blackvisionit (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Windsor licensure section

Hey, just saw your edit. The citation for the United Kingdom does actually mention Windsor. And the citation for the United States and Canada states that "IMED listed schools" can get ECFMG certification...and Windsor is an IMED listed school (as cited earlier in the WP article). SGMD1 (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Does this look like a genuine local newspaper to you?

Well, does it? I think I have just stumbled on a mess where a certain person has deleted a fair bit from an article on the grounds that they've never heard of this newspaper etc. Might leave it alone and retreat to William Crooke & Yadav but would appreciate your thoughts nonetheless. There are BLP issues at stake also but my gut feeling is that the removed uncited stuff could have been sourced.

It is turning out to be one of those weekends. :( Sitush (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's absolutely a real local newspaper. Look at their Contact/About page]. Heck, look at The Spokesman-Review, which indicates that they have the third largest daily circulation in Washington. Now, as always, any given story is still subject to RS review, but, in general, they should receive the same deference as any other daily newspaper. Tell me the article if you want. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That is what I thought. I also think that a little effort could have found the necessary sources (they're probably actually in the existing cites, just not tagged at each paragraph). Finally, that although there are issues with advocacy groups, in this particular instance someone may have wielded their editorial pen a little too quickly. Anyway, it's here. - Sitush (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just left a note with MangoWong as I have found other examples of overdoing removal of content. It is a little concerning but I dare not start fixing those issues myself as it will just cause still more bad feeling. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Relation between myth, religion, and Philosophy, in Physics#History

Replied User_talk:Captain_Screebo#Relation_between_myth.2C_religion.2C_and_Philosophy.2C_in_Physics.23History

And here is the reference for what you tagged citation needed:

• Bryan Magee, The story of phylosophy
• Jostein Gaarder, Sophie's world, A story about history of phylosophy.
• Kathryn A. Morgan, From myth to phylosophy (click to read), page 30: "from myth to logos?".
• Frank Reynolds and David Tracy, Myth and philosophy (Click to read). Page 95: Myth, religion and Phylosophy in ancient Greek.
• Lawrence J. Hatab, Myth and philosophy Page 293.

Please don't reply here. we are discussing them in Captain_Screebo's talk page. --Saeed 07:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackvisionit

First off, I want to thank you for your advice and criticism. I appreciate the feedback and correction. Again, thanks.

I have a question about Blackvisionit's posts such as This, which he sent to everyone who had edited the floppy disk article. Would that qualify as Wikipedia:Canvassing? Or am I being hypersensitive because of previous bad experiences? Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I believe that I have fallen into a mental trap: Wikipedia:Witchhunt. I wouldn't have questioned this if J.Random User had done it, so I should not question it now. Never mind. Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackvisionit has started editing content on Floppy disk hardware emulator again. Alas, one of his contentions (that floppy drives are going out of production) appears to violate WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL It seems reasonable to assume that they will go out of production, given that so many new PCs don't have a floppy drive, but we won't know for sure until it happens - they may have a comeback. Given his past behavior I have a concern that he may not be able to edit without bias and incivility. Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please hand Guymacon some 'relax, don't immediately revert, don't be stuck to your opinion' advice? Article is now trying to be rebuilt. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Since that's not how Wikipedia works, no. Anyone is free to revert a new change; the next step is to discuss it on the talk page. Thanks for calling my attention to the issue though, as I believe a block is coming your way. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

He just put the unsourced information back. I did not revert because that would put me at 2RR. Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That article is still on normal editing standards, so you are fine to revert if you are sure the edit was wrong. Blackvisionit should never have edited in the first place, since that was not a minor edit; I've blocked him for that for 24 hours (though he's appealing the block). However, there's nothing wrong with discussing it first on the talk page. Perhaps a fair interim position would be to remove the one sentence you indicated is specifically wrong and leave the rest, then discuss on talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have removed the incorrect statement and left the rest. Guy Macon (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Two issues: First, should Blackvisionit be changing the importance and class of Articles? [7] [8] [9] [10] I was under the impression that WikiProject Computing assigns those.

Second, I would like to request that Blackvisionit be instructed to refrain from personal attacks. They interfere with a collegial environment, and I am tempted to respond with bad behavior of my own. In the last 4 days Blackvisionit has:

• Accused me of a conflict of interest (no evidence given) [11]

• Accused me of being a "problematic user" and of "seeking revenge" [12]

• Accused me of "attacking" him and being "dense" [13] [14]

• Accused me of posting false info, called me a troll [15]

• When told that accusing another editor of trolling is a gross breach of civility, replied with. "Sorry but we've got evidence of repeated intentionally harassing behavior." [16]

• Accused me of "active edit warring and non-objective tech-interpretation" [17]

• Accused me of posting false info (again) and trolling (again) [18]

• Accused me of "stalking" him. [19]

• Explicitly accused my of bad faith [20] - while on a 24 hour block.

In my opinion, I think a "no tolerance" policy towards personal attacks is warranted in this case. Guy Macon (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left my response on Blackvisionit's talk page; since xe regularly archives/blanks material (which is, of course, perfectly acceptable), the diff is [21]. The summary is, some of those are PA, some are not, so Blackvisionit should stop the bad behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Info

I found very interesting considerations about WP survival in Jimmy Wales talkpage. I've added some related thoughts - like an article stub - in my user page. Placing should be correct and material proper but I don't know what's the standard way to start interaction/invite interested users. RfC or { { help } } or ...? Thanks Blackvisionit (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend making a post in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) asking for users to come look at your subpage and provide feedback. The nice thing about the idea lab is that it's designed to be a positive space (though that doesn't always happen in practice) where people look for good things in ideas rather than just saying "No." If you would like to transform any part of that into a specific proposal, the correct page is Wikipedia: Village pump (proposals). Using the help template will only bring one editor, and its for a person having a specific problem (your page isn't really a "problem", but a brainstorming site for future WP improvement). RfC's aren't appropriate on a user sub-page. If VP doesn't work, I'm not sure where to go next, although people there may offer further ideas. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed with another user to build a brainstorming page - that will link to VP. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Chandigarh Capital Region - 4 down, 2 to go

In case you hadn't notice, these have become a lovely shade of red:

• Economy of Chandigarh Capital Region
• Parks and gardens in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Transportation in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Knowledge industry in Chandigarh Capital Region

I have just nominated the last two items for deletion:

• Category:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Template:Chandigarh Capital Region

When those two are gone, I will remove cats and templates from the articles that have them (I have the list on my HD.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff, Anna. I was doing some clean up of links to the deleted articles the other day and noticed that the Chandigarh portal still exists. Another MYK offering, I doubt very much that it will be edited by anyone else but really do not know enough about portals to be 100% sure. What gives? - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with it either. Q? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I also don't use portals--i don't see any need for a third level of navigation beyond links, categories, and the search box. But, then again, that's because I'm comfortable with WP as an editor; maybe those who are primariy readers find the portals to be helpful. I was looking around the page, and found that there's a WP:WikiProject Chandigarh, surprisingly. It has 2 members, only one of which (User:Tinucherian) has edited in the last month. I left a message on xyr talk page for xyr opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive search box

Consider adding a simple search box to your archives. The one on my talk is the least intrusive one I could find. You're welcome to pinch it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! After a bit of work and learning some html/wikimarkup, I was able to get it to float right underneath my archive box. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Verbosity

I thought that I was verbose ;) I shall keep out of it for the time being. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it's not the length, its that he sounds like he's trying to write an epic, or narrate a documentary. It's really no different than someone writing to simply--it's just the wrong register. That's why I'm offering to either do it myself or let him do; different people are better at different things. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Qwyrxian! I hope you enjoy this mouth-watering treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Your name sounds familiar, but, to be honest, I don't recall where we've crossed paths before. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The National Association Of Powered Skateboard Racing [sic]

So we have one sentence about a two-year old organisation with one non-reference. The link Modesti, Kevin (19 July 2010). "Motorized skateboarders race at Encino Velodrome". Los Angeles Daily News. Retrieved 10 August 2011. goes to the newspaper's wikipedia page, which doesn't even mention this organisation, let alone establish notability. Wikipedia is not WP:RS anyway.

We are not even told that it's American, and I have doubts whether "of" should be capitalised. We aren't told anything about it other than it was founded by two guys in their fifties. If you really insist, I'll restore, but I'm not going to send to AfD or Prod, since I think SD is appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, I screwed up the link, sorry. The actual link should have been to [22], which you'll see is an actual newspaper article about the group. To me, that coverage indicates a credible claim of importance...the problem, though, of course, is I'm not sure it can pass WP:GNG (I haven't yet found any other sources). If you think that newspaper reference isn't enough, let me know; I can always try just userfying it to my sandbox or the creator's sandbox, and see if they have any more sources that would bolster it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just realised that you are an admin, so you can restore yourself. I won't wheel war if you do that. Personally, given the limited content and one ref, I don't think it's viable, but I'm happy to leave it to your judgement. All the best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yadav DRN

See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yadav - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My 3RR Helpme Request

Thanks for stopping in. When I realized I'd 3RR'd -- on nearly so -- I realized I should cool off. I actually thought a block would help me. I think this is a better thing however: that I just the hell calm down.

For better understanding of the heat, please have a look at user contributions of User:ConcernedVancouverite here. I have been an occasional editor of several of these articles, and I am very disturbed by disruptive editing. Individually, CV's changes may seen as the challenging but reasonable work of an editor with an agenda, but taken in total, his edits are much more challenging. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Solved disputing

Hi, I've read the message from User:Guymacon about moving to other work as feeling too involved. Tomorrow (or when you feel it necessary) I'll remove all my { { uninvoled } } section if everything will be still silent. Solving without having to report anything to WP:WQA or WP:AN is such a relief.

User:Freywa, already active on the Floppy disk article showed some interest in reviewing. With your kind consensus (that will be added to talk) about directly adding tech-only text

• no reference at all to manufacturers
• no reference at all to product features / compared features
• no reference at all to articles hosted on manufacturers' pages
• no EL section

I'll rebuild the article and cooperate with Freywa and maybe other people from the Guild of editors. Blackvisionit (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you can't just restrict yourself to the talk page? I really don't understand why, when presented with the standard COI solution, you refuse to accept that? As you say, there is at least one other editor who is interested in working on the article as well, so it's not like it's just you, all alone. Wouldn't it just be easier to continue full discussion on talk, and let others make the edits? It's also unclear to me that your suggestion is even viable, since there isn't a very clear distinction between "tech" text and other text. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems we're near to a solution. I'll try to be as clear as possible:

• tech-text: floppy drives spin at 300rpm or 360rpm, emulators need to switch PLL frequency < r e f >
• personal-opinion: floppy disks are no more worth because there are better devices available

• tech-text: floppy drives, upon receiving a step-pulse, switch to next track in above 8ms < r e f >
• personal-opinion: non-standard drives don't need to be emulated because no one uses them any more

tech-text is more-than-a-stub and less-than-an-article. Other editors will review sources, written english, and expand. There are also some orphans that are worth to be merged. Blackvisionit (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Swissôtel Tallinn

Thank You for your help I need it. And now we have two articles: right name Swissôtel Tallinn and wrong name Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia but the second have a right old history. Please paste the text from Swissôtel Tallinn to Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia and move his name Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia to Swissôtel Tallinn. I can't to do that,therefore came the third article Swissôtel Tallinn (2007) --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I see the old history, but Mall {{linkrot|date=July 2011}} is present too. Thank You very much, best wishes --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia is a redirect. That means that it's not actually an article; if someone types that in the search box, they automatically get sent to the correct article Swissôtel Tallinn. So there's only one article left. The Swissôtel Tallinn has the proper history.

The "Link rot" template is correct. That article uses only bare urls (just direct web links). It would be much better if it used citation templates, like {{Cite web}}. More info can be found at WP:REF and the citation template, Template:Cite web. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam requested move

Hi Qwyrxian, you mentioned you were looking for evidence on the Adam page regarding the requested move. I've added a lengthy breakdown of statistics that show evidence that the Adam biblical character does not appear to qualify as the primary topic. Hope that helps. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A new economic system

This user recreated this page. Thanks. Atomician (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Congratulations

I thought I'd let you know I'm pleased to see you successfully completed your RFA. Not that it matters anymore, but I would have voted support for you. – AJL^talk 09:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Er... I mean !voted... Whoops! And you're welcome.

I'm also happy to see that the conflict revolving around the SI area didn't influence decisions in a negative (personal) manner and that participants were able to "look at the big picture". – AJL^talk 10:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the end result was 2 of the SI editors voting for my RFA, and 2 voting against (one of whom was canvassed by a wholly different editor and probably wouldn't have come otherwise). Your question at Talk:Senkaku Islands is a good one, and one I'm still toying with. The basic concern is whether or not the content issues can be fixed before the behavioral problems are fixed. The former can't be fixed by ArbCom, but the latter can be. Different users have expressed different opinions about this. I wonder whether or not ArbCom would like to see one more good faith effort at an RfC, since, even though there have been numerous RfC's (and equivalent) before, there's been some changes in the basic data that some believe will alter the outcome of a new RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion between you and I is largely done, but you probably should finish the business with Lvhis. A second mediation can be viable, since Tenmei (the main reason for last mediation to fail) has withdrawn his participation from these pages. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, he's already back. It appears my theory about gaming the system is not wholly unfounded after all... You know... do something that merit a block, declare a wiki-break, and then come back after the block request proposal is thrown away (due to the wiki-break) :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have requested that Magog the Ogre block him. At first, I thought you were just talking about un-collapsing the talk page, which is pretty small, but then I looked and saw that he'd put in the same edits. I fully agree that, no matter what exact "rule" (XRR, BRD, etc.) is being enforced on those pages, its clear that making the same edit again is a violation of the intent behind the rule. I have posted a note on Magog's talk page requesting that Tenmei be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll support an ArbCom motion to deal with the behavioral issues. If they want to resolve the content issues (or at least some of them), then that is an added bonus. – AJL^talk 09:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Senkaku Islands. I didn't list you as a party given your limited involvement, though you are welcome to do so if you like. Sigh...there are many parts of Wikipedia I hope to at least "visit" eventually, but Arbitration is not one of them. I just don't see any other choice. Hopefully I'm not just walking into a stick of my own throwing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the request before you posted this message here, and I have already made a note that I was briefly involved for a short time in attempting for MedCom dispute resolution. I will be preparing a more complete statement later, but for now, I need to be going to bed. I agree, ArbCom isn't exactly a place I'd want to participate either or find myself considering.

And be careful... those sticks has the potential to hurt pretty bad, especially if you throw them at yourself. Hopefully you can outrun it! :P – AJL^talk 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll see if he can out-run those sticks :). By the way, would it be possible to invite AGK as well? He's the chair of the mediation committee and had supervised the mediation proceedings at a substantial degree. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I will notify AGK, though I won't add him directly, under my same logic for not including Ajl772. To be honest, I'm not even sure how much input Feezo can give, because it's unclear to me how much they're allowed to comment based on the privileged nature of mediation. Part of Feezo's "work" extended beyond mediation, which is why I saw his input as potentially useful. But there's no harm in me notifying AGK; if I understand correctly, un-named parties are welcome to provide input as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggested him because I saw Feezo's name on there. And as far as I know, he did participate beyond the scope of the mediation. Am I right? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Xe did a little bit. I left a message on xyr talk page, though xe has a notice that says xe is mostly unavailable in August. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Atterion

FYI, I have just opened another SPI for Atterion, based on edits at my talk page. They have also just taken out a load of cited content at Green Leaves, which I have reverted.

Utterly fed up of Wikipedia's idiots right now. I might go find another gap to put some bricks in. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain they're the same person; that's a long time sleeping. On the other hand, that appears to be someone's "bad hand" account--it's almost exclusively dealing with weird archiving, much of which was disruptive, and had some serious vandalism that they somehow managed not to get in trouble for. Nonethless, the timing was very odd. Interested to see if a CU Clerk endorses. I'm going to ask for a sleeper check if they do. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in India: pesky IP

Hello my friend. There is an IP with a long history of disruptive editing (including blanking) at List of shopping malls in India. He's the main reason for a couple of page protections, and lots of my time wasted. The range is always 117.192.0.0 - 117.255.255.255 I don't know beans about range blocks. But, I'd rather see this range nixed than protection. What do you think? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, a range of that size effects over 4 million users, so I'm sure that's out. However, I'd be happy to semi-protect the page indefinitely. I looked through the history, and I see you reverting IPs both in and way out of that range. I know that some of the IP edits are good, but this seems like exactly the kind of page that can and should be indefinitely semi-protected. This is because almost all people adding to the article simply go "Hey, there's a mall next to my house, I should add that", without understanding our need for sourcing or notability (well, not notability, but, at least, some level of importance; 2 stores connected to the same parking lot shouldn't count as a mall). For precedent, I point to List of search engines and List of social networking sites, two that I watch, that are indefinitely semi-protected. Anyone who wants to add something can do it with an edit request, and when someone makes a request without a source, it's very fast to just say "All entries on this list must be verified." I would also consider adding an edit notice, for both the article and the talk page, making that requirement. Both of the two lists I just mentioned have even stricter rules--they require that items on the list have their own WP page; I don't think you want to go that strict here since so few of them have articles, but a consensus of involved editors could make such a decision. Let me know; feel free to copy this over to the article's talk page and see if there's anyone else watching who has input. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also technically impossible, as only up to a /16 range can be blocked, and even then it is best if only checkusers place those blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the input. I will paste this to the article talk. I should have done that in the first place, and posted here with a talkback to the post.

Indef semi would be grand. By the way, I also suspect competing malls removing the other guys' entries.

I will amend the lead to reiterate the invisible comments currently beneath each section title "This a list of shopping malls which have Wikipedia articles." (Is it "which" or "that"? My English is really going down hill.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pasted. Further posts to this thread can continue at: Talk:List of shopping malls in India#List of shopping malls in India: pesky_IP

User:FreemanSA

Thanks for your help with this user, I hope that works, but at the moment, the user seems not to have taken the message. Their latest revert:

• 12:55, 12 August 2011 (Undid revision 444317399 by Kudzu1 (talk) WP:NPOV)

They also responded to you on their talk page, accusing me of both "crying" and being "a troll".--Objectively (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I now have reason to believe that the user is using a sockpuppet to try to avoid 3RR. The most recent revert on the article comes from User:Archeopteryx5, which seems to have been created just today, and has edited two of the articles User:FreemanSA was most active on. I put more info on the the noticeboard post. Thanks again! Objectively (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the problem has been solved, or, at least, a number of the socks have been taken care of. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism on your user page

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Topher385's talk page.
Message added 13:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A brownie for you!

Nirmal95 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

SI

Hi! Thank you for the notice. I'll think about it. BTW, it looks like you forgot to add this rm. Oda Mari (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. That RM is there--it's the second one on the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. But you have to correct the first sentence of the entry. It says September 2009. Shouldn't it be 2010? Oda Mari (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks. Fixed now. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WPIX

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about the redlinks rule, however:

• a) There are still red linked names which you left
• b) Why would you delete the names rather than the wikilinks?

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't actually with the links, its with the people themselves. WP:NLIST says that on lists of people (stand-alone or embedded in an article), we can only list people that are verified to 1) be important enough to be discussed in prose in the article and 2) are verified to meet the list criteria (here, that means being a past employee of WPIX). Basically, that means that everyone on this type of list needs to either have their own wikipage, or a reference verifying they worked here and are in some way important. Theoretically, I should check the wikipages of everyone who is linked to make sure there is verification on those articles, but doing so would be so laborious that I choose not to. On Current staff lists, I just presume that the information comes directly from the studio's website, so I don't ignore them. But for past staff...the list shouldn't just expand to be everyone who ever appeared on air there, but rather be only those people who are verified as important to the station's history by a reliable source. So, I'm going to have to undo your edits at WPIX (and remove the person you said was incorrectly linked). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify: technically, WP:NLIST only applies to living people. But the problem is, if someone just adds "(deceased)" after a person's name, that still doesn't provide any verification. Furthermore, WP:NOT says that we aren't here to list every single detail that is true about a given thing, and WP:V says we should be able to verify everything we include, so, for consistency, I still remove the deceased ones w/o refs or pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Then

• Notable alumni, not just alumni, should be the name of the section/list in question
• All names without wikilinks should be removed as there is no verification of any particular notability. Joe Harper link, btw, was to Pat Harper, his wife and on-air partner.

Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Getting Acquainted with the 'help me' request tag

Hi, thanks for noting my request. You ask if I have any specific request. I have many, many questions. However, my main purpose for posting it was to see how it works. I had just learned about it. I do have a question, though. How did you find my 'help me' tag so quickly? Are you alerted by some mechanism, or bot? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Any time anyone adds that tag to a talk page, that page is automatically listed in Category:Wikipedians looking for help; someone interested in helping other editors can monitor it. Also, a link to that category appears on what is called the "Admin Dashboard", which is basically a handy page that collects all of the various things that admins might be interested in (requests for blocks/unblocks, potential deletions, page protections, etc.). So I noticed that 2 people were looking for help when I pulled up the Admin Dashboard, and, after looking at your request, thought I might be able to provide some help :). As a side note, I now have your talk page on my watchlist, so I'll see future comments you put there. But if you want general help, or want help faster than I may personally be able to provide, feel free to use the template again. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Forming a Consensus

Hi Qwyrxian

On your User page you wrote: "I also sincerely enjoy coming to a pre-existing dispute and looking for ways for people of differing views to come together and form a consensus." If possible or practical, can you summarize some of your basic notions learned or used? I have just recently gone through an intense dispute with another editor. The dispute has returned to a low simmer mainly because I grew tired of it and took a break. I like the negotiator idea and am pleased that you like that role. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a good question; however, it's quite a complex one, and I'm about to wander away from Wikipedia for the day (it's almost 10pm here). I'll come back in the next few days to tell you what (little) I know. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have posed a question on my talk page, for starters, as well. We should probably make use of only one venue. When you come back, I will follow your lead on how to proceed. Thanks for your time. It is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Military Metaphor. On my user page I suggest that wikipedia's level of editors favorably compares to military rankings. Admins are like Commissioned Officers. Non-admin editors are like non-commissioned officers and other personnel. Some non-admin editors give advice in commanding and demeaning tones. This has inspired my distinction between the two levels. One editor took offence to my making a difference. I respect all editors. But, if a conflict develops with another non-admin where I feel I am being bullied, I remind the editor that we are both non-admins and that I wish an experienced admin would come and help us think. My Question: Can you comment on this approach of dealing with someone who makes me feel bullied? Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your page yet, but I don't think that's a very good analogy. In most situations, admins are nothing more than editors with a few extra "buttons"; that is, admins can block users for violating conduct rules, protect pages that have been subject to a lot of vandalism or intractable disputes, delete pages that the community agrees should be deleted (and a few pages that can be deleted on the discretion of individual admins), and hand out a few user rights (rollback, autopatrolled, etc.). But in terms of a content dispute, admins actually have no more authority than any other editor. Yes, it is true that due to natural social pressures, admins often have more "clout" than non-admins, and there is some reason to believe that admins tend to come to each other's defense quite readily, but that's not an inherent part of the position, and one that some admins try to work actively against. The one other "advantage" is that admins are often on the upper end of experience, and so they may simply know policies better than newer admins, but there are plenty of very longterm non-admins who are equally well versed.

Now, on the "tone" issue (again, I haven't looked at your page yet, so I haven't read the details), the truth is that neither an admin nor a non-admin editor should be "bullying". In all cases, editors (save those who've proven to exist "outside" the community, like serial vandalizers or banned editors) should be treated with respect. However, what counts as "bullying" and "respect" varies from person to person and culture to culture. For example, in Wikipedia, it's not bullying to tell someone directly "You are violating policy X. If you don't stop, you can/will be blocked." We have a whole set of standardized warnings that say exactly this. The right to say this is not at all limited to admins; the only difference in this case is that only an admin can actually push the button to block someone. But, long before I was an admin, I was giving people warnings, and, in some cases, requesting the user be blocked for consistently violating policy/guidelines.

So, I guess I would alter your metaphor to say that everyone is on the same level, and that no one should be bullying anyone else, though we have to look at the exact situation to see what bullying is. Luckily, Wikipedia has all sorts of ways to get more people's input in cases where bullying or other bad behavior is alleged, and that's usually the best way to attempt to deal with any dispute. I'm going to come look at your page now see if there's input I can give. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you wanted me to look at on your talk page--there's lots of info there, so please point me in the correct direction. However, I looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard R. Brand, and I do have two pieces of advice: First, stop. While an AfD is a discussion, it is generally not appropriate for one person to continually question, respond to, and otherwise talk back to every other respondent. Additionally, you are correct when you indirectly in the middle that you shouldn't be "opining on the larger world of Wikipedia." There are dozens of other places you can do that, but that AfD is only to be used to discuss whether or not one specific article should be kept. Second, I think you're fundamentally confusing "notability" in the way the term is used in the real world, and the way the term "Notability" is used on Wikipedia. They're not actually the same. In order to function (in the clunky, slow, way we do) in the midst of a massive collective movement only a few steps away from anarchy, is to have a very strict definition of notability. In the case of Brand, for there to be an article, you have to prove that he meets, probably, WP:PROF (I'm gathering that Brand is mostly known for his academic work, making that the appropriate guideline); if not, WP:BIO is the right guideline for "generic" people. It isn't about showing that he runs in two circles, or is "significant", or whatnot. It's about showing that Brand has already been the subject of significant, detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources; for academics, we add extra stipulations to help distinguish the act of citation from actual "discussion". That's how Wikipedia determines notability. There are both good and bad things about this definition and process, but it's what we have now, and the framework within that article will be judged. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Dethcentrik_(2nd_nomination)

Hello. I wanted to thank you for protecting Død Beverte. User:Metal.lunchbox tagged that article for speedy deletion after tagging the band Død Beverte is in: Dethcentrik for deletion. I wanted to ask if you could check out the AfD discussion and would be able to do something about it if you as well notice that User:Metal.lunchbox is using false information based on a vandal placed tag in addition very ungrounded claims as reasoning for creating this AfD, and if you find this to be true could you please also protect the page? BusyWikipedian (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got this resolved. For reference: what is vandalism? It seems I have taken misinformed edits as vandalism. Is there a way you judge what is vandalism, and what may just be an editor making an edit in good faith but they may be misinformed? I noticed you simply explained to the user what he did wrong, what personally told you to act that particular way? Just curious. BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note about removing speedy delete tags. All is not what is seems with BusyWikipedian and the article Død Beverte. I accept that other editors may delete the tag, but I was concerned that the single purpose users removing the tag were not actually different from the editor who created the page, concerned that the removals were just gaming the system. I was not the only editor to revert the removal for this reason. Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (2nd nomination). I believe that the user BusyWikipedian who objects to the deletion of the article Dethcentrik has tried to make the AfD look as if it has been closed by an admin. I think some supervision is necessary. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the "not a ballot" template to the AfD, and added it to my watchlist. I have informed BusyWikipedian of the procedures for AfDs, and asked for an explanation of xyr behavior. You are correct that the AfD should not have been "closed". I am declining to actually comment in the AfD so that I can remain uninvolved.

BusyWikipedia, I explained on your talk page what vandalism is. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Update to MOS or no?

Qwyrxian, discussion in MOS Talk has dried up. What about update to MOS:COLLAPSE? I know update language was being drafted. (I trust my suggestion to give consideration for difficult or brilliant game continuations in addition to chess problem compositions did not complicate matters inextricably; a responding editor thought the distinction wasn't important.) Without change I'm wondering what profit from all the involvement and discussion? (Without change, isn't it game for the same issue to repeat all over again, covering the same bases again? That seems wasteful and somewhat pointless to me.) Just trying to make sense of all the effort. Is there a timeline I don't know about for installing the update language to the MOS? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually, RfC's are supposed to run for 30 days. However, if the discussion has stopped, it's unlikely anyone else is going to jump in. There appeared to be a good consensus to change the MOS to include some allowance for collapse boxes for chess articles, though we disagreed on the exact wording. I'll make a comment on the talk page, then make the change directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't realize it had actually gotten archived. Well, I'll still go ahead and make the change, citing the archived discussion. Even though I disagree, given that at least two people want the broader language regarding continuations, I'm willing to accept it. That is, I won't add in the stipulation that the collapse can only be done if reliable sources would also "hide" or "obscure" the answer or continuation. I'll just take my best shot at a wording, and others can make modifications as they see fit. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can see the addition in this diff. I toyed with a bunch of different wordings. On the one hand, it feels very awkward to me to specifically name exactly one subject (chess) in the MOS (it seems like WP:BEANS). On the other hand, I couldn't think of any broader wording that wouldn't lend itself to exactly the sort of abuse I was worried about at the beginning. That is, any general discussion of "game continuations" could easily, to me, be taken as license for someone to say "Hey, put the end of that video game in a collapse box because it ruins the surprise!" or "Collapse that info in that board game article, because it gives hints that people shouldn't have to read if they don't want to." So, I went with the least words I could. We'll see if anyone reverts it or modifies it. I hope not though, as this seems like a reasonable compromise, as well as a sensible exemption. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, welcome back from wikibreak.
First, thanks for making the change to MOS! Second, thanks for being open to not excluding brilliant or difficult game continuations in the MOS update language. Third, I understand what you say about keeping the language simple, so it doesn't draw flies, and I've done some thinking about it, and I think the update language can be simplified even further and even be more precise. Here's what I'd suggest:

Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzle diagrams.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess diagram puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess diagrams containing puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or diagrams containing chess puzzles.

It turns out (if I'm right) that "chess puzzles" does a better job than "chess problems", because after reading Chess puzzle, I see the definition of puzzle encompasses chess problems. The article says:

Whereas the term chess puzzle refers broadly to any puzzle involving aspects of chess, a chess problem is an orthodox puzzle [...] in which one must play and win or draw a game, starting with a certain composition of pieces on the chess board, and playing within the standard rules of chess.

Also, throughout the discussion I forgot about chess endgame studies, which are essentially chess problems too but not exactly. The Endgame study article says:

An endgame study is a composed chess position — that is, one that has been made up rather than one from an actual game — presented as a sort of puzzle, in which the aim of the solver is to find a way for one side (usually White) to win or draw, as stipulated, against any moves the other side plays.

And regarding brilliant or difficult game continuations, there isn't a specific WP article corresponding to those, but it seems they would fall under "chess puzzles" according to the WP article definitions, see here (from Chess puzzle):

Chess puzzles can also be regular positions from a game (with normal rules), usually meant as training positions, tactical or positional, from all phases of the game (openings, middlegame of endings). These are known as tactical puzzles. They can range from a simple "Mate in one" combination to a complex attack on the opponent's king.

and here (from Chess problem):

Problems can be contrasted with tactical puzzles often found in chess columns or magazines in which the task is to find the best move or sequence of moves (usually leading to mate or gain of material) from a given position. Such puzzles are often taken from actual games [...] and are used for instructional purposes.

So to summarize, I think the update language should mean to include "chess problem compositions, endgame studies, other chess puzzles, and brilliant or difficult game continuations"; but of course that language would be absurd as update language, and unnecessary too, since "chess puzzles" seems to cover it all (according to the definitions in the other WP articles). What do you think? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. A perfect example of what I said in prev discussion about game continuations being sometimes segregated (hidden) in reliable sources, and sometimes not, is reflected in the way article Alexander Alekhine was constructed by other editors. (There you'll see diagram "Reti vs Alekhine" which is a game continuation *not* hidden, [followed by an endgame study (chess problem) where solution is hidden of course,] followed by the "Alekhine vs Yates" diagram which is a game continuation that *is* hidden.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:B. R. Ambedkar.
Message added 11:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ranjithsutari (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

It's been a couple of weeks. Nothing. Lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky, lucky. This problem has the potential of just melting away. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Untimely deletion

You need to help fix the problem you caused.

The deletion of the Senkaku Islands mediation threads was unexpected. For me, the surprise was untimely.

• (Deletion log); 21:29 . . Feezo (talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands" (For the Mediation Committee, due to arbitration case)

I asked Feezo to restore the missing diffs. Predictably, there was no response. I asked for Nihonjoe's help. He suggested here that I may need to ask an arbitrator to do this. Elen of the Road explained that it is standard practice when a failed mediation results in an arbcom case for the mediators to delete the files - it's part of MEDCOM's ground rules for mediation that it cannot subsequently be used as evidence against any of the parties.

I read nothing that would have reasonably warned me that this would be a direct consequence of your request for arbitration. Did you?

I asked Elen of the Road to restore my diffs only; and these can be restored at User:Tenmei/Sandbox-Archive 1. She has not responded.

Perhaps you can do something to mitigate some of the inadvertent harm you caused? Please help me by adding your support to my request for restoration of my diffs in my sub-page. --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Elen has responded (note that to class something as *not responded* to, you do need to give someone time to respond). She has also responded everywhere else you've spammed notices about this. See Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation - the mediation pages will be made available again after the RFAR closes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit its surprising, but now that I see it, it makes perfect sense. You knew before Mediation started that all conversations which occur in Mediation are "privileged", and that they specifically may not be used in future disciplinary proceedings. It's a shame, because several parties had some pretty "ripe" behaviors that I'd love to point out, but that's just the way mediation works. Personally, I have no idea why you would want that undeleted, since, in all honesty, you don't look very good in that arbitration (neither do some other editors, but since you're the one raising the issue...). After arbitration (assuming they don't take the extremely unlikely and certainly unpopular course of making a decision on the name), it may be useful to extract some of the data (like JSTOR & Worldcat search results) for whatever final process we're following do determine the name. I'll ask Feezo about that once arbitration is done. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)