User talk:Qwyrxian

Review of my article before it goes live

Hello! I have been working on another article and it is currently located at a work-in-progress page under my username User:Mrlwiki/Jay_Golden. I'm still working on getting permission to use some photographs I found on the web and linking to other Wikipedia articles but could you take a look at the article and let me know if I did everything else right this time? I think this guy is definitely notable (there is a lot of press about him online) and I've followed all of the citation guidelines that I learned from my last article. Let me know if there's anything you would change (besides adding photos and linking to other Wikipedia articles) and what is the proper way to move this article into the mainspace once it is ready.Thank you!

Mrlwiki (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review of my second article. I just moved it over to "Jay Golden" and it has a "new unreviewed article" template at the top. Can you remove that for me since you've reviewed the article? Then I'll submit the article for DYK. Thank you!

Mrlwiki (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rate Your Nando's

Hi Qwyrxian, We spoke about citing www.rateyournandos.com pages on the Wikipedia Nando's page last year. Since then the rateyournandos website has expanded significantly and can now be considered a significant resource in its own right. Please can you reconsider lifting the ban on citations from the website. Particularly significant are the international pages found at www.rateyournandos.com/international.aspx which contain facts and restaurant listings which cannot be found anywhere else online. Were the ban lifted I would be able to add a lot of useful information to the Wikipedia page which would no doubt help people all around the World. Thanks Jc sed8d (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that, as the website itself points out, it is still just a fansite with no affiliation at all with the company. As such, there is no reason to believe that the information is in any way accurate. We definitely can't link any of the commentary or ratings as those are just the random opinions of random customers (which don't meet WP:DUE). The other info, about locations and things served, does seem useful, but it seems to be outside of Wikipedia's provenance. That is, our job is not (see WP:NOT and WP:EL) to provide every link that might be "useful" to readers--our job is only to provide encyclopedic summaries of what reliable sources have said about things. I don't see anything on the rateyournandos site that overcomes the prohibition in WP:ELNO on fansites. However, others may disagree. The best thing to do is to start a discussion at Talk:Nando's, and then possibly to go to WP:ELN (which is a noticeboard where people discuss external links) for more input. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak over

I've finished my wikibreak; With about 10 days worth of stuff to go through, it's going to take me time to get up to speed, but I'll respond to concerns when I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ciao for now

Though it's been fun, the end of mediation has signaled another end to my activity. If there is ever another mediation or a higher level DR, you know how to find me. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

About Lisi

I responded to your comment on the page if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.55.28 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Qwyrxian, but in the years I have contributed to many many physics pages (I don't have an account and I have contributed from several locations) but I have never had any problems like this and I did not realize that defending true statement would have created a problem. I thought it was obvious that some editor are attempting to modify the truth. Especially in science that should be ethical and objective. 98.244.55.28 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then you've been lucky :). It does, indeed, happen that science topics became "hotbeds" of editing, so long as the research involved is either adopted by pop media and/or is questionable within the scientific community itself (i.e., what Wikipedia calls WP:FRINGE topics). Personally, I've been on and off on Ruggero Santilli for probably about a year now; and, of course, look at the problems with the entire area of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Please note that I, at the moment, don't understand the situation with Lisi well enough to know which of you, if either, is presenting an NPOV approach (thus why I enlisted help from Wikiproject Physics). Also, note that Wikipedia treads a very careful line about the "truth"; in fact, we generally care much more about verifiability than we do about truth. My initial impression is that both of you seem to be partially right, thus the need for discussion to work it out. Thanks for bearing with the process; dispute resolution can be time consuming, especially when you're certain you're "right", but it's the only way to both allow free and open editing and strive for the best possible articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That was really interesting. I guess it's more normal to have crazy edits on topics as broad as global warming, while I have never had problems in basic physics and particle physics. The subject maybe is too technical to attract edit wars. I have to be honest, I am particularly puzzled about this Lisi page. I looked at the history and apparently there were both attempts to insult Lisi's work and to promote it. I am honestly not trying to make Lisi look like a stupid physicist (like many physicists do), but at the same time it is highly unethical to leave the page with impression that Lisi's theory is currently a valid alternative to the mainstream theories. I realize that verifiability is more important that an abstract concept of truth, but at the same time it should appear obvious that what Lisi himself states is NPOV, and so is obvious that about the criticism to his theory we should look at the actual papers that express that criticism instead of what Lisi reports about it.

If you ask particle physicists, they most likely would just tell you that the theory simply doesn't work and that it is very very far from being even comparable to other theories. It is very complex to give details of why this is the case, it would involve the understanding of why the three generation problem is so important in particle physics (basically you cannot predict anything without the three generations, because they are so intertwined in the modern experiments, especially the top quark is a key particle for most processes, while the up and down quarks are the, say, main components of protons and neutrons, which means that you really really need a way to include the generations to do anything in modern particle physics).

When I met Lisi, I talked to him about the theory and it was obvious since then to him that the three generation problem was the main problem of the theory, together with the fact that each particle would have the same mass (which is wrong), that at the time there was no dynamical symmetry mechanism (an attempt to give one is due to Smolin, for a general class of models), and that he is not capable at the moment to reproduce any of the patterns of masses, interactions and mixing angles because to do that you need the three generations (because they "mix"). But I think that Lisi is a smart person, just not a traditional particle physicist, which is too bad because sometimes he doesn't see the importance of cleaning up his theory instead of going around and giving interviews to popular papers or magazines.

But all this media attention created a lot of "fans" who love the idea of the surfer dude who "understands more than professors" (which obviously isn't the case, not because he couldn't be a good physicist, but just because he has done little compared to a lot of other people). The E8 stuff was known in string theory for a lot of time, although it is used differently in that case and the only Lisi's new thing, what he calls "superconnection", that unifies fermions and bosons, so far has no explicit realization (it is actually a very important problem) and he always just responds that it's possible using some BRST technique (which are never seen anywhere applied to such a problem). So, while at first it seemed a completely honest person, people started not understanding why he wouldn't really ever answer to the criticism but just partially. He always states that it's not a problem, but then never includes it in his papers. If another "academic" physicist did that, they would be immediately marked with adjectives like "unreliable" and "visionary", but if Lisi does it, then he gets the support of the fans and the media loves him because the idea of the person who skies, surfs and does physics in his 70s van on the coast of Maui is very very attractive to the audience.

Now there is even people making money with it. From Lisi's page you can even buy T shirts for $20 or so. Nothing bad about it, obviously, but this could even potentially create users who care more about supporting the theory instead of what the true impact of it is in particle physics (honestly very little).

I am also worried about the young people. In fact, while it's good if they get interested about particle physics, it is dangerous to let them believe that the surfer guy is right and instead the evil string theorists are just trying to make him disappear because he's a threat to the academic world of string theory (this is sometimes what people try to say dividing physicists in partisan lines).

I honestly worked in particle physics, I know well both Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. I don't like either of them, if anything I like LQG a little better as an approach to gravity and ST better as a particle physics approach, but this doesn't make Lisi's theory right or wrong. Lisi's theory for now just doesn't work. He knows that, everybody does. In fact, he has stated so in several occasion (that currently it still isn't a complete theory and that the predictions he can make are very little). But from the page it seems that Loop Quantum Gravity people like Lisi, while String Theory people hate him, but this isn't the truth. The truth is that most people know that the theory is very very incomplete (if not wrong is some of its parts) and they don't care much about it. I know many LQG people who think that Lisi's theory is completely wrong, others who liked the spirit of it, others who worked on the gauge part but not the fermionic part. I know "no physics researcher or professor" who believes that his theory is correct (because not even him is claiming so). And believe me, I know many physicists.

At the same time, Lisi's theory allowed a lot of people to be interested in the topic, which is a very good thing, and I disagree when people just want to insult him for making mistakes and not being the perfect ethical researchers (for example, a physicist said of him something like "it's hard to make him understand why he is wrong when his money depends on not understanding why he's wrong"). I instead believe his work should be presented neutrally and just for what it is, with no connection to the person (expect for authorship and then his story in his personal page). But the physics presented should be at least correct, and if there is something in his theory that clearly doesn't work because it is so stated by everybody (and it is verifiable), then this should be clearly reflected on the wiki page. Instead the wiki page in some of the edits almost looks like what Lisi himself would write about his theory.

Honestly, nobody would say anything like that about, for example, Arkani-Hamed, Nima's new unification program involving twistor theory doesn't even really have a page, and it's considered by the most brilliant physicists around the world very very promising (I challenge you at checking what people will say in 5-10 years about it). But nobody would ever try to state false things to present it for better than it is. For now it has great results but it's not a full theory. And Nima has 19345 total citations, not 29 total like Lisi, of which 16 are for famous paper and some of these 16 are even his own (while Nima's most famous paper has 744 citations). This is why when I read "several" instead of "a few" I get suspicious (without even mentioning that the editor tried to say "builds on" his theory, where it is verifiable that some of those papers, available to look at online, just briefly cite Lisi's). (P.S. Nima is 4 years younger than Lisi)

So, when you see that Lisi's theory has so much importance and presents things in a POV way, you either think that somebody has an interest in doing that, or that there is some crazy fan that doesn't understand much about physics and wants to promote his idea of an alternative scientist (respectable, as long as the information isn't false, like sometimes unfortunately it is)

Anyhow, after this long and maybe boring story I'll go back to my actual work. Let me know if there is anything specific that can help the dispute process to appear clear and clean. Cheers 70.136.253.158 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghazal's book cover image

Doesn't NFCC only apply to non-free content? (Note the change in license terms, which I'm in the process of double-checking, but yes, it is my understanding that the author is the publisher, owns the cover copyright, and is willing to license CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'm also quite open to the idea that I'm completely off-base, please apply any necessary clue here, thanks.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about that. I guess we'd need to answer two key questions: first, does Omid herself hold the copyright on the book and cover image? I can't access Amazon from work, but if we can determine from the book who owns teh copyright on the book, that's a start, though even if we determine that she holds the copyright on the book, we need to be sure that the cover image isn't separately licensed (the copyright pages of the book, if available, should answer that). However, even if that's the case, we'll need clear confirmation from OTRS that she released it; I see she put an OTRS number on the file page, but not the template; I 'll try to figure out how to do that. In the mean time, I've self-reverted the removal of image; technically, it would probably be safer to leave it off, but I don't want to appear to negative on this article (I'm the main contact that the person claiming to be Omid herself has on WP right now, and I've had to turn down many of her requests as not meeting our verification or NPOV policies; I genuinely want to help her, but it's the normal problems we have with people wanting to be involved in making sure their pages contain the Truth). I'll try to look more into this later.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you the OTRS volunteer who processed the request? I thought that more clear info was given on the file description page after the OTRS is processed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm new at OTRS and it's entirely possible likely that I've mucked that up. (I'm off to bed, but hope to have more info in the morning.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I am now confortable that the author has given the appropriate license and understands what that means. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me. I'm happy to have it so long as the publisher isn't going to come at us with a DMCA. And I see that you have the full template up on the image file, so everything looks peachy-keen. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop your pre-stalking at once

Every time I go to revert vandalism, you've just done it 2 seconds earlier. I was thinking of reporting you, but of course your plan would be to warn them 2 seconds before I make such a report. Ooooooooooooooooooooooo! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this indicates that I am paying too much attention to my watchlist and not enough to my actual job. Okay, I'll try to give you at least 15 minutes or so while I do something "productive"--have at it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you know I'm kidding. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course! It is oh so very hard to resist checking my watchlist all the time, though.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for me when I tried to revert occasional vandalism from various articles, but either one of you have done it before me several times, although I did manage to get a few vandalism reverting of my own. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CHAK: It sounds like you're having trouble finding vandalism to fight. Lots can be found among the normal edits here:

• User creation log
• New user contributions

Don't forget to auto-add them to your watchlist. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to put in a solid night of whack-a-vandal, try Huggle. Pretty much the fastest thing around, except for Cluebot. Not something I like to do too often, but sometimes its nice to do something that no one will deny is good for the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I used to use it. Fast! Then the GFW decided to block it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The POV-title tag

Check here and the definition of that tag. I hope you are not trying to get advantage of the status quo by refusing the tag when there exists such drastic dispute over the Japanese title which we have strongly and reasonably proved a POV one. --Lvhis (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me just mention to (congratulate?) you, that you are extremely good at pushing my buttons. I started a really angry response to this this morning, but luckily I saved it rather than posting it immediately. Please, it would be so so great if you could stop assuming that everything I do is done with some sort of ulterior, sinister motive. That stance (note that it's one that's held by people on both sides of this issue, not just you) is one of the bigger problems we had.

For example, regarding this issue, I'm not trying to take advantage of anything at all. As you know, I was the first one to support the addition of the tag from the "Senkaku" side, a long time ago. And I note that another admin has put the tag back now--I have absolutely no problem with that at this moment. To me, the process is still ongoing (it wouldn't shock me if we end up at some new forum, possibly ArbCom), so if an admin wants it on, and MedCom isn't going to fight it, so be it. I even think STSC asking AGK nicely to put the tag back was fine, as that was a private action that simply asked for the prior situation to be returned. However, I believe that using an edit-protected request would be a direct violation of what AGK asked us to do: "we respectfully ask that the parties abstain from all activities relating to this dispute, which would include editing the Senkaku Islands article, and interacting with the parties on other pages". And now I realize I compounded your mistake by one of my own--I didn't notice that I wasn't supposed to be contacting you on your page, either. My apologies there.

So, since we're not supposed to be talking, I will simply finish with this: all I want, all I have ever wanted, is to come to some sort of working consensus decision on the name. I have a personal belief about what that name should be, and I have before and will continue to argue in favor of that. I reserve the right to change my own belief--I learned some very important things in the Mediation so far that effect my belief on how we should figure out the right name. In fact, I hope that everyone involved in the process is open to changing their beliefs--otherwise, I don't really know why we're bothering with mediation. I am not trying to use any tricks, I am not trying to change the rules, I am not trying to take advantage of anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely hope you have been cooling down. As you have admitted, you first went to my talk page and left message that I could also complain as pushing my buttons. I doubt if you really and carefully checked here to read the conversation between Feezo and me, and what Feezo suggested. Anyway, I did express my appreciation for several times when you demonstrated your correct or almost-correct construing the POV-title tag. But it was not the 1st time that you took a wrong stand towards such kind of tag, see here. As I said in Feezo's talk page, as long as there exists a dispute over the title no matter which is or will be, the tag shall be on. It would not be worth contacting other users in their talk pages if you could have correctly interpreted and treated that kind of tag. Let us drop this issue. As for the name/title, the grounds you used for your argument were wrong. If you try to find out some way new and change your ground, that will be a different story. Take care. --Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dimbeswar Neog

I didn't weigh in on Dina Wadia because I was on the fence. Here is a similar situation. If you have a view either way, please say. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I added two sources; since they're from India's national Academy of Letters, and both call him notable, I think that's probably enough to establish notability. I can comment in the AfD; however, you may want to consider withdrawing it at this point given the improvements. His name seems to show up in a number of other books on Indian literature; none seem to be super-in depth (he is, after all, a critic), but some of them could probably be added. If you want to keep the AfD running, let me know and I'll comment in it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism cats

At this point, should we just go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in order to deal with this issue? It's not going to end otherwise. Silverseren^C 05:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, although I've never actually used DRN. In the past, in similar situations, I've always started an RfC; either way should be fine, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Dear Bm gub2 thank you for adding to the Santilli's page the section on Lawsuits. Several people who have a grudge against arXiv have written to us asking how we were successful in having the objectionable articles removed by arXiv! You were able to add the web site on the Committee on Scientific Ethics . Nobody was able to add this source before as it was removed by the editors controlling the page because it was not considered a notable reference. Good job. Now the word is out and even a section on Wikipedia which was removed in the discussion , is now available. Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. First, you left me the same message you left another user (BM gub2). And I understand you're trying to explain something about the Ruggero Santilli page. If there is something specific you think needs to be added to that page, please go to Talk:Ruggero Santilli and discuss the issue there. Please explain exactly what source you think needs to be added, and what text you believe should be added to the text. Then we can discuss the issue. Of course, assuming you are using your real name as your username, you should not directly edit the article as you have a clear conflict of interest, but we can discuss the issue. Please note that there are no specific editors who "control" the page; all decisions are made by consensus, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this message went to you by mistake since you edited the section on Lawsuits. I was just thanking Bm gub2 (and congratulating him/her) on being able to add ref. 24 which several have tried to add before. So the consensus was not there before and it is there now....I think it is a favorable addition to the page. No need to have more discussion or addition. Thank you for your time.Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: UniStar School Changa Manga

Hello Qwyrxian. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on UniStar School Changa Manga to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? As a school, it is necessarily either an organization and or corporation; it had no assertion of importance (unless you consider the mere claim to be a school of some type to be an assertion of importance), and, as such should qualify under A7. No big deal; I suspect it will be deleted anyway at conclusion of the PROD period (absent some major changes) but I'm just wondering about your rationale. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Under the CSD rules, schools can't be deleted under A7, so I changed the CSD request into a PROD. As you wrote, it will produce the same result, it'll just take a week. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WCCO-TV

The problem with the removal of that much content was that some sourced and readily available information was deleted too. Portions of the technical data, like the digital channel the station actually broadcasts on, the HAAT, the ERP, and even the facility ID were deleted. Also the information regarding WCCO's translator stations was taken off. All of this information, as I said, is readily available and sourced. I can see taking out the other parts, but not the stuff that is already properly sourced. Why should WCCO-TV be special? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that if the information is verified, even by an EL or a source that doesn't have an inline link, it should have been kept. Thanks for helping figure out what was appropriate to keep and what wasn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gurjar Leader Ram Chandra Vikal

Dear Mr. Qwyrxian I am also an old wikipedian and contributed lot in Gurjar , 1857 freedom and other articles. Here i putted the information and picture of Mr Ram chandra vikal with all weblinks and proof He was oldest freedom fighter and Gurjar leader. He was elected as M.L.A. for U.P. India in 1952.. I am giving you all media , news paper and government link.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5238802 http://royalgurjars.blogspot.com/2007/05/famous-gurjars.html http://ayurveda.zeenews.com/news/uttar-pradesh/former-up-deputy-cm-ram-chander-vikal-dies_715608.html http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/former-up-deputy-cm-ram-chander-vikal-dies/739596.html http://ashokharsana.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars&action=display&thread=344 http://aiffo.org/about-us http://bulandshahar.nic.in/MLA1.html

I hope this is sufficient proofs for reference. Revert your changes. regards

Gurjeshwar (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss that on the article talk page. Providing the references is the absolute, bare minimum (and you would need to actually add one of those to the article; if we do add, I recommend the first one, as it seems to meet WP:RS). However, my opinion is that it's wrong to have anyone in the infobox that doesn't have an article about them--it gives too much weight to someone for whom we haven't verified notability. If other editors disagree with me, then we can revert and add the picture. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

recent edit

Your edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_(season_4)&diff=437663788&oldid=437656502. I know Blogs are not accepected as RS but Since this is the blog from the creator of the show its okay. Other users have dissuced this and said it was fine to use a a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Cards (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize that was the producer's blog; in that case, you are correct that it's a reliable source. I've added that episode back in. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with interested party repeated vandalism

Hi Qwyrxian - I need help corrected a living person bio page that has been repeatedly vandalized by an interested party. Is it possible for me to discuss this with you in email? I am looking to correct the page to a neutral tone, remove incorrect or slanted information and would like the page protected, but am not sure where to turn for help. Every time I try to correct the page, the interested party reverts my edits. Please help? =( Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's generally better to discuss issues here on Wikipedia, but if it's more comfortable for you, you can e-mail me by going to the left side of this screen, opening the "Toolbox" menu, and clicking the "E-mail this user" link. However, you need to do know right away: you need to never make an edit like this one from Talk:Susan Polgar again. Specifically, you attempted to reveal the identity of another Wikipedia editor, which is specifically forbidden by WP:OUTING. I'm going to ask for that edit to be suppressed (meaning it will disappear so that it can't even be seen in the history). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jat people qualifier

Your clarification was spot on. I got that user name mixed up with someone else who keeps bringing up similar points without any "proof", and despite numerous attempts at explanation. I shall leave a mea culpa below your comment. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RCP proposal

Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Word Macro trick

I see you alphasorting lists sometimes. As you have surely encountered, sorting a list in Word or other programs groups all bluelinked items together because they start with [[

There is a trick to get around that.

• First search and replace all * [[ with *[[ (get rid of the single space and make them consistent)

Then record a macro that says:

1. Search *[[
2. Right arrow backspace backspace to delete the [[
3. Go to end of line (click "end")
4. Type bunnybunny

Then run the macro a zillion times. It will change this:

• Willowdale school

into this:

Willowdale school]]bunnybunny

Then alphasort the list.

Then make a macro that says:

1. Search bunnybunny
2. Remove bunnybunny
3. Go to start of line (click "home") and right one space to get past the *
4. Type [[

You can keep the macro forever to use again and again. Saves oodles of time.

Tip: Keep a superwide Word document on the desktop so that almost certainly nothing linewraps, which can screw things up.)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've used a similar method before myself for stuff done outside Wikipedia. Whether or not I use Word to alpha-sort lists on WP depends on how long the list is; sometimes, it's practically the same speed to do it by hand when the list isn't too long. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Get Editpad or Editpadpro. Soooo good. The former is free. It's a simple Notepad, but with extra stuff, even macros and highlight-and-alphasort on the spot, and make-all-first-caps, and very easy search an replace, and stuff like that. Plus it's like a notepad but with tabs like firefox.

Microsoft Word drives me crazy. It's always so busy trying to guess (incorrectly) what I want and make it easy for me that I just want it to stop. Ever try to do indents and numbering and bullets and such? It just won't stop trying to guess what you want, and it's waaayyyyy off and you can't stop it. It's like a retarded person trying to take over what you're doing and show you how. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From IP

Why do you keep deleting my posts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.85.28.12 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your post on Korean cuisine because it was personal opinion, and very offensive opinion at that. Your other posts to my userpage were reverted by someone else, correctly, because they were vandalism. So, if you start posting legitimate information to the encyclopedia, I won't revert you. If you keep posting vandalism to user pages or the mainspace, I or someone else will continue to revert you, and you'll be blocked. Your choice. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal - Black sandbox closure

I was just writing the section below in the black sandbox to be placed right at the top as a final post. But, by the time I got to the bottom, as you can see, I started to question purpose.

SPIs are good for range blocks which doesn't seem feasible. The whole purpose of SPI is to connect users, which we don't need. We know darn well they're connected, certainly better than anyone else. We know the pattern.

AIV blocks persistent vandals. They could easily challenge what we know to be the same old story.

Maybe we should just continue with black for a few months. If we don't allow the addition of anything other than clear cases, why not? The system is in place. It's easy with rollback. It seems better than prospective plans. Maybe the vandal will run out of steam? Currently, it's like slow motion whack-a-mole. Little effort.

Nobody wants this bone out of our throats more than I. But, we could get dragged into more work otherwise. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Winding up this sandbox

It seems we are ready to move this to SPI. Ages ago, I tagged a few as socks with: 98.82.167.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as the sock master.

HelloAnnyong's reply was slightly unclear. I gather that we should start the SPI with 98.82.167.40 as master, and paste in the list below. Qwyrxian: Would you like to do the honours? I suggest stripping away the comments at the end of the lines, and adding a short summary of what's happened in the SPI. I don't know whether we should alphasort the list or not. Your call. Yippee!!

Well, not really yippee. We will still be doing the same thing. The only difference will be adding the IPs to the SPI instead of here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And Qwyrxian, your last comment on this page was to rollback without checking each one. Yes! That's what I've been doing.

Finally, HelloAnnyong's advise might not be best after all. Qwyrxian's plan of simply sending the IPs to AIV could be best. I don't know. Actually, continuing exactly what we're doing here seems most efficient. Damn. This whole thing bites. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit tired at the moment, so I don't want to figure out how to do all of that tonight; tomorrow I'll likely be busy all day, possibly the day after. But I'll likely get to it tom. or Tuesday, and, if not, at the worst, on Wednesday (our time). However, one positive note: I don't know if you're aware, but Cluebot has "learned" that these edits, at least on WMBB, are "vandalism". My guess is that it looks to see which edits by IPs are being regularly reverted as vandalism; it may even have access to Huggle whitelists or other ways of measuring reliability of reverts. So maybe the longer we keep at it, maybe eventually Cluebot will start to take care of it for us! Of course, that user can always revert Cluebot, but, such is life.

With the SPI, one thing I'll want to find out is if maybe we can get a set of small rangeblocks that would eliminate most of the bad behavior. I've seen that done before on ANI, where one range was obviously too large, but the majority was coming from multiple smaller ranges. Maybe one of the CU experts can figure something tricky out. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Clever bunny. You're talking like a real gumshoe. :) There's also the edit filter thing. You rest. Let's pick this up at your leisure. There's no hurry. Lots of mallets, easy whacking, retarded mole.

Of course, the huge question from all of this is: In nature, are some moles retarded? You never see a retarded dog. Sure there's the Basenji. But they're consistently stupid. You never see, like, an obviously mentally retarded border collie. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Localized TV station slogans. It looks like they are running at about a week or more to begin initially responding to requests. Note that this won't actually stop the editor entirely: just recently, I've been seeing the editor also making unsourced changes to dates, to the names of employees, etc. But that actually happens all of the time from other good faith editors, too, so that will just have to be handled manually. Later I'll also open an SPI, just in case there's a set of magic micro-range blocks that can be applied. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong says rangeblocks won't work. If one small one will, I don't see it worth the human resources. In light of that, plus what you've said about edit filter, and the fact that AIV requires adequate warnings at user talk, I think we're best to avoid these unnecessary keystrokes and just keep rolling back and using black. Least effort. Lesser of all evils. Hope he runs out of steam. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll rolling and sending to AIV; part of the goal there is to maybe get admins seeing the same AIV report over and over, and maybe one of them might be willing to help find another solution. Hopefully in a week or two we can get up an edit filter that will work. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Billi Bruno

Just a heads-up, I'm pretty sure we're arguing with the IP of User:AmericaIsNumberOne there.--Atlan (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence for that, you can re-open the SPI case and have the IP blocked, at least temporarily; or, you may be able to contact the blocking admin directly and resolve it faster. Is warring over this name something that AmericaIsNumberOne did before? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here for example. Edit warring over According to Jim cast members is something he and his other accounts have done on a number of occasions. The IP is not very active, and there's no block evasion to prevent if it doesn't edit anymore. If it does become active, I will re-open the SPI. I currently have no indication that he is editing through new accounts.--Atlan (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Kshatriya Merge

Yes I'm really busy but sure I will do my best to add my conclusion before the end of July so that we can move forward. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fine; I'll leave a note on the merge discussion. If nothing comes in by sometime in August, I may recommend going ahead with an RfC anyway, just because I hate to leave the discussion floating forever. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not revert, I edited

I just edited the article, I never clicked on the undo button, lol.