User talk:Qwyrxian

Paragliding

Please unprotect the Paragliding article. You or someone just obliterated some 20 hours of work with references. Thank you. And by the choice to overwrite my work instead of freezing at that point seems to show a choice that does not fit Wikipedia guides. Jontly (?) did not come to discuss; he did damages without signing, I suspect that was he. The article is severely with a narrow point of view. Much work is urged to do justice to "paragliding" way beyond the interests of just a few current sellers of sport paragliding wings. Paragliding is a large topic; readers deserve neutral point of view, not just a sales push of sport paragliding. There is a need for two moreBold text articles: Sport paragliding and one for the machine Paraglider. And contest on the how to do sport paragliding belongs in Wikiuniversity. Is this note better here in your talk or below your note in the article's Discussion; thanks for tutoring me on this question; I don't not which place is most polite or most fit. Thanx. Joefaust (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I protected the article because several of you were edit warring over the content of the article. When admins fully protect because of a dispute, they don't look at the content and decide which is "correct"; admins have no special "vote" over how to make an article correct. The fact that the current version is the one I protected is not an endorsement of that version. Again, the only reason for full protection is to prevent people from just warring back and forth, and, instead, compel actual discussion on the article's talk page. I recommend that you start doing so; if the other parties refuse to discuPss the issue, then I will prod them to do so. In fact, I'll actually go do that now. You may need to use our dispute resolution process if you can't solve the problem yourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to answer what you placed on my Talk page. I copy here.:  :::Thank you. Sorry. Will be more careful on that. I was responding to his phrase: " If you prefer I can hit the "undo" until it the page is locked?". That felt like a manifesto of a vandal; but I will not react on such declaration again. Thanks for the guidance. I guess unending undo is an OK procedure. Joefaust (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you have a look at Paragliding (again). The edit protection has just expired and I don't feel user:joefaust has quite understood the concept of consensus on the discussion page followed by modification of the article. Thanks. Jontyla (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to edit the Paragliding page this evening with a view to keeping much of what user "joefaust" has added, even though I would have preferred not to. I had attempted to merge his changes within a reasonable description of Paragliding. He has, once again, gone against consensus and edited in all sorts of junk. You don't need to be a pilot to know a paraglider is not a kite, and you only have to visit the Glider aircraft page to see paragliding listed! I know who these two editors are and they have been banned from all major paragliding forums for trying to enforce their ideas on the mainstream and refusing to accept differing opinions. I truly feel sorry that our dirty laundry has made its way to the doorstep of Wikipedia. 88xxxx (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The definition of paragliding that users "joefaust and "nopara" wish to see for our sport is not mainstream and is not acceptable to the paragliding community. Many of them will not check the page regularly enough to have noticed. I would hope you have formed an opinion after witnessing their editing of my posts in the Talk:Paragliding page over the past few days. Likewise, please be aware that both I & Jontyla have been arguing a viewpoint supported by many thousands of pilots and I fear we will not stand idly by and allow such a definition of the sport we love be defined by such extreme self publicists. Surely there must be a procedure that can be initiated when such things occur. I don't believe this page can be the first to experience such behaviour from a minority that has been banned from all specific forms of communication that they turn to Wikipedia. 88xxxx (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I would ask you to please protect or otherwise lock the Paragliding page again so these rogue users cannot modify it further with their inaccuracies. Secondly, please inform me where I should direct the paragliding community such that a true consensus be delivered. As you have said, Wikipedia is not a democracy it moves forward with consensus and it is a fact that, to this point, you have heard a few pilots put forward the case against these two, but there are literally thousands of pilots who are in agreement with us. Keeping them up to date with the recent changes to the Paragliding page is something we have both been actively trying to avoid. We love our sport and we wish to see it defined as best we can, including seeing the dangers associated with it fairly laid out to anyone looking for a description of what we do. Nothing more and nothing less. 88xxxx (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it--see my note on the article's talk page. Note that we will never protect an article simply to prevent changes: we only protect articles to stop edit wars. Wikipedia articles must be free to change in as many cases as possible. Do not direct the pilots anywhere--I'm currently investigated whether or not you or any other users have been organizing a campaign off of Wikipedia; I'm happy that so far we haven't had any flood of new users, but you cannot canvas off of Wikipedia to get people to show up here to request changes. Wikipedia is not interested in hearing what the "paragliding community" thinks. What we care about is what is written in reliable sources. Period. This is exactly the same as the fact that we don't go to the subjects of biographical articles and ask them to vet the info; if a reliable source says something, and it meets our other content policies like WP:NPOV, then we include it. If there are multiple perspectives in reliable source about what paragliding is, then we're going to include them. If the sources are overwhelmingly in favor of one specific perspective, then our article will reflect that (that is, we don't include every viewpoint, as we can exclude those that are WP:FRINGE).

Think about it this way. Let's say you get 15 people to show up here that all say "Paragliding refers to the sport; all other meanings are secondary." What if Joefaust goes and gets 15 people who say the opposite? How could we even verify the identity of those, and determine if they really are "experts"? This is why Wikipedia just has to rely on reliable sources rather than the word of experts. Very often, experts disagree. Our job is not to pick the "right answer", but to fairly represent all major viewpoints in due respect to their real world importance. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate you efforts. This evening I tried to edit the page to allow his links and references to the minority uses a paraglider has, but he edited right over the top. We have been dealing with these guys for some time and they have been thrown out of just about everywhere, not that this should affect your decision on a way forward, of course. They have three motivations here, 1) to discredit paragliding safety by linking to news reports they have been collecting 2) to try and give the other uses of a paraglider more importance when in reality they are a tiny % 3) Passing the time by winding up pilots as entertainment. You can't know this, but we do, and I suspect you will have the time to get to know this, as we've seen how they operate. Unfortunately they are unlikely to leave WP any time soon.

Just so you know, there are other uses for a paraglider, but they amount to such a small percentage they cannot be considered side-by-side. That said, they should probably be linked to in a true encyclopaedic environment. Likewise , there are probably no more than 5 people in the world that share their negative view on paragliding and one bloody email from either Jontyla or myself could have 500 comments by midday tomorrow. I know this is all new to you and you can only go by what you see occurring to a page, not by content, I do appreciate your position. Otherwise you could not be independent. 88xxxx (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just re-read your comment and two things have just struck me that perhaps I should also comment on. Canvassing: I don't quite know what you mean. Your comments imply that we as a collective group can canvas using Wikipedia in some way to further a cause (?) If that is what is meant rest easy, we just want to see a fair description of our sport which is the generally accepted use of the term paragliding. If you mean we are canvassing against these users, then yet again relax, we really don't care about them as long as they are not harming the public opinion of our sport in any significant way. Which is it? What am I missing here? ... Secondly, "reliable sources". I appreciate that reliable sources may be used to confirm facts and figures such as fatalities or numbers of cars sold per year or whatever, but how does one use a "reliable source" to define an activity without referring to a dictionary? What do we do if we wish to persuade an independent observer, such as yourself, that the common definition of paragliding is what we do? Point you to the OED or Websters, or send you a screenshot that show the first 100 hits on Google refer to our sport? How do we go about demonstrating that 99.9% of uses of the term paragliding refer to our sport and that we should acknowledge the other (tiny minority) of uses as links or in a small section of the definition? 88xxxx (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding canvassing: WP:CANVAS says, in the section on Inappropriate Canvassing, that "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)" is not acceptable. So, you shouldn't be talking on any other forum about concerns you have with this article...well, that would be borderline...but if at any point in the future you asked people to come to Wikipedia to help advance a particular position (either by overloading a discussion on a talk page, or trying to influence an AfD, or something similar), then you would have definitely crossed the line over into inappropriate canvassing.

Regarding the definition: Several options. One would be, rather than grab the OED, instead, find one or two of the most respected books in the field that cover the entirety of the topic; such books are very likely to include a definition in the introduction. These don't have to be "expert level" books--even if there was a book for beginners that really just set out to give a basic guide to the field, so long as it is reliable (i.e., published by a major publishing house, not clearly biased, well thought of in the field, etc.), then that can serve as a good starting point. Another place would be in articles from outside of the field that still happen to mention it. For instance, if there were a good article on something like "legal liability in sports" that happened to include a definition of paragliding, that would also help. Finally, as far as talk page discussions go, it is actually helpful to provide google results (no screenshot necessary as long as no one objects). Mind you, you should not only do a Google Web search, but also a Google Scholar search and possibly Google News Search. We do this all the time when we're trying to decide the names of articles which have more than one name. The how-to guide Wikipedia:Search engine test gives some guidance about how search engine results can and can't be used. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, we can relax on the canvassing issue. We've actively been hushing it up as we'd prefer that sought after responsible look they all want. If it reaches the stage that I clearly DGAF then canvassing will become an issue, but not for me. Re: paragliding definition; I listed two books in the Paragliding:Talk page last week with amazon.com links, search for Amazon in the page. Are you seriously asking me to do some googling and send you the results? And scholars? I work for a Europe-wide Scientific Agency and I've met three pilots professionally, or how about a mail from an Oxford Professor of xxxxx? Give me your mobile number, I'll get him to text you! I don't intend spending much more time on this than I have already invested. It would be an all round easier job to send 5 emails. 88xxxx (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As you saw above, I'm not the one you need to convince on the definitions--it's other editors. You getting those books (which I had forgotten, thanks) is an excellent step. Furthermore, I think your point (or was it someone else's?) that the top 150 Google search results all seem to refer to paragliding the support is also strong evidence. At the moment, you don't need more...just be patient, sometimes things on WP take time; I'm still trying to get advice as to whether my next step is re-protecting the article or blocking editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

May I proffer wisdom as a watchword here? You've tried the protection approach already. You protected the page a week ago. It worked well, it kept the page unedited for a week. We all discussed things openly. Two editors started changing our edits in the Talk page as they were incapable of straight debate. The page was unprotected. One of these editors then immediately began his campaign of re-writing the page. So let me get this straight, is your plan to restart that procedure and run through it again? If it is, I can number the steps to make it easier for them to follow as I feel they may be on a par with the youngest of my children when it comes to following instructions and it may assist us in getting right back to the point we are at now in less time. 88xxxx (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you find in real life (or other web forums, for that matter), that you achieve success when you directly or indirectly insult people, both your opponent and those you are trying to help? I suggest you rethink your approach, here. Regarding the article, I'm still hoping to get more input from WP:AN before proceeding. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The truth? I've tried both and they seem to give pretty much the same results, but with indirect humour and sarcasm I get to have chuckle on the way. What it can do, sometimes is grab attention, and in this case it is neither an insult nor insulting, it is a statement of my point of view. It is, for all intents and purposes, one man asking another man not to try again what has already been tried and has failed, because he feels all that will result is an additional time-delay between where they both are now and where the resolution lies. And with every day that passes before a resolution is found hours of peoples lives are wasted, so he has concluded that anyone choosing that path is making a mistake. My opinion. Stated clearly. We do appreciate your help, it's just we have been dealing with users such as these (these people maybe!) for well over 10 years, and although we may know little of WP protocols, we do know the game they are playing. 88xxxx (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr Q, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to reply to your message on my talk page here, or there, or somewhere else -- does Wikipedia not have a user-to-user message system? Anyway, I'm not sure how to self-revert, but if you want to revert my recent changes, feel free. On a more general point, Joe Faust and Rick Masters (aka Nopara -- the clue's in the name) are anti-paragliding evangelists (or should that be unevangelists?) who want to tell everyone how dangerous paragliding is and persuade them to stop doing it. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for this -- especially as Joe often uses words and phrases that are unique to his mind. Regards, me Manormadman (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"manormadman": The PG side is being handled as best we can for the past week or so by both Jontyla and myself. (both known from PGF), please do not spread this around the PG community the last thing we need right now is 1000 pilots all commenting here as all hell will break loose. You know what happens when these two characters get on the back of pilots. We have been trying to resolve tons of issues, including the PDMC, pages that have a complete dump of "cometclones" links, etc, you can imagine! To this point we have seen standard behaviour and admin Qwyrxian has had to deal with these users usual approach of simply not listening. Please let us carry on in the background, or for a laugh, read the talk page of Paragliding, etc, but keep it to yourself for a bit, ok? (the other) 88xxxx (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

@88xxxx: Well, glad that works out for you in real life. On WP, since we have to edit in a collaborative environment, we actually require civility, as a policy. Please try to tone down the jokes and get your amusement elsewhere (oddly, I recall saying something similar to Joefaust recently...). Regarding the article, I'll make a decision re: protection, etc., today.

@Manormadman: I may revert your edits; I'm not actually sure what I'm reverting to yet; still looking for other uninvolved opinions. As for "evangelizing" well, yes, that's bad (we call it POV-pushing). The issue is being dealt in part with deletion of some of the more egregious "articles". Nonetheless, if there are reliable sources that actually say things like "Paragliding is dangerous", then we have to include that info. So far, I haven't actually seen those sources, but I'm still waiting. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you consider archiving the Discussion page while making the cut at a helpful section. I am not WP skilled in deciding the matter or doing archiving of such talk pages. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, "Paragliding is dangerous" is both undeniable and almost meaningless. I myself have seen an accident which killed two people -- I know it's dangerous. Cycling is dangerous (I've suffered grazes and bruises), cooking is dangerous (I've burned my thumb and cut my finger), climbing K2 solo in winter is dangerous (far too dangerous for me to want to do it, unlike cycling, cooking and paragliding). I think no one objects to well-sourced material on the dangers of paragliding -- either in absolute terms or relative to other pursuits -- if there's any to be found. But I believe that Nopara and Joe Faust are determined to push their point of view that paragliding is unacceptably dangerous specifically because paragliders have no rigid structure. I've yet to see any reliable source say this -- only their own assertions. Regards, Manormadman (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Manormadman, as a new contributor, maybe you don't know, but Wikipedia admins actually have no authority over content. Or, rather, they have no special authority--usually admins can engage in content disputes just like any other editor. In this particular case, I can't even do that, because I'm acting with my admin "hat" (i.e., I'm the one who protected the article); as such, I have to remain strictly uninvolved in the dispute. If I were to become involved, then I could no longer use my admin tools there. I am happy to help guide you on processes you can use to resolve the dispute, but as far as actually deciding anything about paragliding, I can't really help.

Having said that though, I can tell you that Wikipedia policy says that any statement that might be challenged must be verified by a reliable source. So if I see any editors continually trying to push info without such a source, or with unreliable sources, then I'll let them know that they can't do that. So if Nopara and Joefaust can produce good reliable sources that say that paragliding is dangerous, well, then, the article should probably say that in some way shape or form (though you are correct to point out that there are many different ways to phrase that). If they can't produce such sources, then they can't. One thing that I think Joefaust is learning (or, if he isn't, he should be) is that what he can't do is take 100 different articles that each list a death or injury in paragliding and then interpret that to mean "Paragliding is dangerous" (that's a form of original research); similarly, he can't rely on self-published websites (probably, there's a little more leeway there depending on who the publisher is). I'll be monitoring the discussion; I'm betting that at some point you all will need to use some form of dispute resolution, which I can help assist in setting up. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood! Although I should point out that I'm not a new contributor -- I see from my Contributions page that I've been editing Wikipedia (occasionally) for four and a half years. Manormadman (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My spam folder just picked this up. It has been sent to an unknown set of email recipients and bcc'd to me. I have some experience away from WP with these editors and email from their websites are filtered straight to spam. It is an email to unknown recipients from user:Joefaust on behalf of Rick Masters asking the recipients to compare the paragliding page to a private website. On the first line of the email there are links to paragliding and "here" links to Rick Masters "cometclones" website. Does this count as "Canvassing? 88xxxx (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

from	Joe Faust Editor@upperwindpower.com
to	
bcc	xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
date	17 October 2011 18:05
subject	October Lift updated with a quote.
mailed-by	bounce.secureserver.net
Signed by	gmail.com
	
Wikipedia warning: readers are invited to compare what they find on Wikipedia paragliding to what is presented here.

To my old HG friends who now fly paragliders: 
It is your decision to fly dangerous, critically-balanced gliding parachutes instead of superior air-framed aircraft.
I am not here to prevent you from flying paragliders, although too many of you are being injured and killed, and it is my personal desire that you will stop.
Despite the obvious fact that paraglider evolution has hit the brick wall, I would impose no restriction on open competitions because they best demonstrate this.
I respect the right of stuntmen to perform stunts.
What I cannot tolerate is the commercial presentation of paragliders as equivalent to safer aircraft with proven negative "g" loading.
You know what I am talking about. The people coming into paragliding need to hear you admit that you are performing stunts.
They need to hear you say that paragliding in turbulence entails a new realm of aviation risk. You are not doing this.
That is dishonest, unethical, and in the end, because of the horrific number of crippling injuries and excessive fatalities:
I have concluded that it is immoral not to discuss this.

Signed:  Rick Master     www.CometClones.com

[2011. so far to Oct. 16: 71 fatalities, which is incomplete.]

If you give me an email address I can forward you the original email. How do we proceed against User:Joefaust and ensure that this stops? If we find a large influx of pilots changing the paragliding page then I will feel obliged to balance this by posting the above email on a paragliding forum, and trust me, I would prefer not to do this. I feel we have good number of users making points on behalf of the community here as it stands right now. 88xxxx (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Information regarding Family of Ali

I still don't understand, why did you remove my given information. These informations are all part of Ali's Biography and these are necessary hidden truths and need to be discussed and included into the article beside with that what about Ali's other 9 Wives and his 19 Sons and 18 daughters...If you are having an issue with a particular sect/Religion/Person, kindly let us discuss it on Talk: Ali and explain what, specifically in broad perspective your motives are;...If a reasonable explanation isn't given I am afraid issue would be raised with Complainant administration.Ashurnasirpal 10:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long; I read your comment, but didn't have time to respond at that moment, then forgot about it. I've opened up a discussion on Talk:Ali, and would appreciate your input. In part, my concern is with the source you've used, but, if that source is okay, the bigger issue is that Wikipedia should not just be a collection of quotations. Our job is to take what other reliable, secondary sources have said and summarize them, not just quote them. Perhaps there's a way to keep the info while cutting out all of the quoting. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sorry for the biggest interruption last month. I was trying to patrol on new pages but I really understand my concerns. I read its deletion policies and I know about how to do them I can define the reason why its deleted or so. Again, Thanks!. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and thanks for reading up on that. If you ever have questions, feel free to ask me at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion "MikeWazowski repeatedly refusing to repond to multiple editors on user or article talk page"

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cloveapple (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion

Check [1]. Looks pretty similar to [2] whom you have a 2-week block 7 days ago. Seems like he got a new IP and is continuing in the exact same way. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP for a month. Let me know if more show up; the only article of his set that I have on my watchlist is Hora (dance); if the IP keeps hopping, we may need to consider semi-protection on the articles instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mine was Haredim and Zionism. I'll keep an eye on that and let you know if I see any further trouble. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Even "self" identification seems inadequate for referring in talks to live persons of reference.

What if someone comes in a TALK where a real living person JOHN VIP HERE is part of the contents of a topic. And says 7777xxxxx comes in on account and says "I am that content-related person, I AM JOHN VIP HERE." My thought is that WP would have us work on the conservative side and not let our talk allow that the claimer is in fact the real live JOHN VIP HERE. It seems like ten people could claim they are the real living person that is important to a content topic. Thus, the guide to say nothing about the private life of a real living person would rule in a TALK page. Tough. Just thinking what admins might want. in discussion, though I am account joefast and I claimed to be Joe Faust of related to content in some articles; that does not me that I am actually that living person; perhaps I am really account joefaust and really not Joe Faust of the related field of a topic. Indeed I might be Tom Stewart, non-PG person. Joefaust (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's take me as an example, since my name is clearly not my real name. If I claim to be Rick Masters (I'm not, but let's just pretend that I say I am), then you would be allowed to call me that. If I say, "I'm the Rick Masters who runs website X," then you could say "Hey, Rick, I read such and such on your site..." or "...Rick, you shouldn't be adding links to your site anywhere on Wikipedia because of WP:COI rules." Am I really Rick Masters? I don't know. Does it matter? Not in the slightest, because even if I really am Rick Masters, that doesn't give me any special authority on Paragliding, Paraglider, or any other article on WP. For example, we have known, demonstrated experts in a variety of scientific fields editing here on WP. And their input is very useful, but only because they're good at finding reliable sources, helping guide discussions, etc. As soon as they start to say "Well, I know this is true because I'm an expert," that's when people stop listening to them. Especially since, as you point out, we can't even verify that they are an expert.

Now, there are two exceptions to this. If someone claimed to be someone that they almost certainly are not, we may block them for impersonation. So, if User: Muammar Gaddafi showed up tomorrow and starting editing articles on Libya, well, we'd almost certainly block the user immediately, because, well, Gaddafi isn't editing Wikipedia, right? Second, if the subject of an article did show up, and was requesting special consideration as the subject (something we allow to a very small degree), we'd ask them to use our Volunteer Response Team to verify that the person is, in fact, who they claim to be. As for people like we're talking about with regarding to paragliding, we would probably be flexible, until such time as the person started causing a problem (or there were counter-claims, or something to that effect). For our purposes, though, the most important rule is this: don't connect editors on Wikipedia to real life names if they haven't done so themselves, or even to other online personalities. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that in some dialects of the English language the name Joe is often used to refer to a non existent person. Joe is often a generic name given to a fictitious person, sometimes to facilitate an explanation. "Hey Joe, I love you", I said, for example. In this case, of course, we know "joefaust" is Joe Faust because you told us when complaining, in the way my children do, about the unfair treatment you received in a totally unrelated set of conversations elsewhere on the inter-web. And as for impersonating retired hang glider pilots trashing paragliding? No one could impersonate such a person, no one is sufficiently clever to keep up with this type of thinking. Any imposter would be outed in seconds. 88xxxx (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bodheswaran

You had a brief involvement with Bodheswaran a couple of weeks ago. I have been trying to source it. There was a note in the body of the article which claimed permission to reproduce from an short essay by his daughter. I removed the note here because I think that we need OTRS permission and even then it may not be suitable.

I have subsequently found a copy/paste of the entire article in this book, which may or may not be related to the work referred to in the above note. The original note appears in August 2009 & refers to an unpublished essay. This predates the 2010 publication date of the book, but the note was then changed by a contributor who may have a COI and the word "unpublished" disappears, for obvious reasons.

It is a bit of a mess. Do you have any thoughts, aside from the obvious "the article needs to be improved"? Is this one for User:Moonriddengirl? I do not want to overburden her unnecessarily as she has got a lot on her plate with WMF stuff. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would take it out. You are correct that unless the CC-SA-3.0 or GFDL is officially verified somewhere, we cannot take someone's word on it. OTRS can handle it, but if they didn't then, I don't think we could possibly do a retroactive release, since the essay has now been copyrighted. For simplicity, I say stub it, replace only the info verified in RS (and that book can be RS). It's much much better to have a stub now than an article of unclear copyright status. It's entirely possible that the person meant to do things the right way, or even that that book is copied from Wikipedia. But, it's not really such a critical article or info that it really deserves any risk. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

KCOY-TV

The point has been made directly to you now. Whether you choose to remove the source as a copyvio, you yourself have seen the evidence and now there is irrefutable proof that KCOY was using the (sourced) contemporary CBS promo package of that day. You, therefore, cannot remove the, now proven to be accurate, information. If a future editor chooses to challenge the facts of the case, I can deal with them in the same fashion. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm too angry right now to answer this. I'll get back to you later. The short version is, you're both wrong and really wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And after thinking about it on and off through the course of the day, I've come to the conclusion that there's really only one thing I want to do: remove all TV station articles from my watchlist. They fill up my watchlist every day with changes to the names of reporters, or the time they're appearing on, or slogans that no one can verify...and they're ultimately not worth it. Most TV station articles need to be reduced by about 50-60%, since they're terribly undersourced (especially the history sections), contain all sorts of WP:NOTEVERYTHING violations (like the aforementioned lists of reporters), but often are aggressively "protected" by local viewers (or, not in your case but in other cases, employees or ex-employees). As such, I think the best solution for me is just to forget the whole mess. I have other things I can do on WP that are a better use of my time and energy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Trackinfo (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Review for FA

Hi, Hope now the article Hyderabad, India meets the standards of FA, Kindly have a review and advice us for further actions. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean GA, right? For all practical purposes, you can't apply for FA review unless the article is already GA. Which, by the way, it isn't ready for either. It needs copy-editing, it's got a bit of puffery, and it's blindingly blue (i.e., it violates WP:OVERLINK). If I have time, I will try to attend to this in the next few days; but I may not (I've been swamped with some big projects recently). If you don't hear from me in 2 days, please remind me. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well as you advice first GA and then FA. Any way mean while I will try to clear some blue lines (WP:OVERLINK) and update you. :) regards.Omer123hussain (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For your kind reminder, :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly, I think it's going to be a while before I can get to it. Just so that it gets done eventually for sure, I've left a request at the Guild of Copy Editors; they are currently running at about a month backlog, so it could be awhile. I will return to this if I have time, but I don't know that I will. Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Atterion

User:Atterion, a sock referred to at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aawjgnekr/Archive not too long ago, appears to be back as an IP. See Special:Contributions/98.68.153.161. I have reverted all three contributions for now and hope that they will just go away. You took part in that SPI but I guess there is little that can be done against an IP in situations such as this? - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy: I blocked the IP for 72 hours. If after the block the same IP starts up again, let me know and I'll reblock for longer. If a different IP starts in with the same edits, let me know as well and either I'll try to learn about rangeblocks, or I'll find someone who already knows. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks. I once looked at the rangeblock article ... and mentally crashed/burned. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation on Paraglider to reopen HOW?

How could WP let one corner of Paragliding also prevent the wide world of the "paraglider" be without disambiguation? How do we reopen the discussion to keep ownership of sport paragliding from grabbing paraglider which goes FAR beyond sport "paragliding"? It is like applies and oranges. WP wants to grow knowledge. Thanks for help on opening "paraglider" for disambiguation. Thanks, Newbie: Joefaust (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do just what I said on talk: discus it there, and provide some reliable sources that verify each of the things you had an the dab are considered paragliders by reliable sources. As soon as you provide at least 2 (actually, 1, since obviously "paragliding" itself is a self-evidence link), and consensus accepts that source and definition, then the dab can be recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Will do, thanks.Joefaust (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

re: IP Vandal on Van Halen, GnR, etc.

Hello. Thanks for the quick fix the other evening. This Brazilian editor is back today & making a large number of edits. I see there's been some images that have been removed from some band's infoboxes. Not quite vandalism, but these things are definitely going to ruffle some feathers. I haven't touched any of the edits yet. The user is 189.79.226.59. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bongwarrior nailed it 4 minutes after you posted here, blocked for 31 hours :). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Blendr

Hi Qwyrxian, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Blendr and would like to try and hammer out a hook that we can both agree on. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Livingstone Primary School, Melbourne.
Message added 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tulip

Hey thanks for telling me that i'm just trying to get the links to work I cleaned up a bit so I hope it's to your liking PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT.--Tulip32 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hounding

This guy was repeatedly invited to disengage from me, because he was once warned to do not cross the boundaries of hounding me. After my topic ban was expanded, due a baseless ANI triggered by him, I do not find any encyclopedic reason or purpose for him still leaving me comments inviting me to "self-criticism" "leaving out my cave", and referring to me as "making a joke of [my]self", etc. Comments that I have explicity rejected but are reposted and reposted here and there. I certainly enjoy sending that sort of comments to the trash can, but I do not want any other pretext to be used to apply even more sanctions against me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Another chapter in the long discussion. ClaudioSantos refuses to cooperate with other people, and has by now a few people on his shitlist. He refuses to talk with them. I am one of them. It is not for nothing that he has now his second topic ban, about the widest ever given... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not editing any wikipedia-article where NotBW is involved, not even editing any article at wikipedia. What sort of cooperation is he demanding? To response his futil request to endorse "criticism"? Does he want a kind of written speech from me declaring shame about my doings? I was talking with other people at my talk page where NotBW burst to provokate such sort of useless suggestions. NotBW already crossed the lines of hounding, although he was warned to stop doing so. I am not obligated to talk with NotBW nor to response his provokations even if I enjoy it. What sort of cooperation does NotBw want when he request from me to "Come on, Claudio! You are now making a joke of yourself. Why don't you just accept that life is nasty and that you sometimes loose battles?" ? What does sort of cooperation does NotBW want when he request from me "you should face the world, dear Claudio. Come out of your cave and start living and interacting with people!"? Is there any encyclopedic purpose on that or they are solely provokations? Once I have explicity rejected his comments and once NotBW explicity recognized that his comments and discussions are not welcomed, then why to insist in reposting them again and again at my user-talk page and then again at other users-talk pages? Is there any encyclopedic purpose on insisting in that sort of useless discussionst or it is solely provokation and disruption? what sort of cooperation is NotBW demanding when he claims ""You are such a pity boy, Claudio. You can not win from me, so now you start crying"? Is this a request of a defeatist speech to satisfy any ego? Does it has any encyclopedic purpose or it is solely provokation, disruption and hounding? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was banned because of "combativeness" then why NotBW evidently warrior behavior is being allowed at all? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Hounding? Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Image issue

Hello Qwyrxian. Could you please delete this image which I've just uploaded. I've been told that I should upload it on Commons and follow a particular procedure. Also, it's an orphan image at the moment as I want it to be deleted immediately. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it under WP:CSD#G7, which means that the original page creator/file uploader asked for the page to be deleted. It's pretty much an automatic deletion unless other users have already edited the page/linked to the file. If you ever need to delete such a page in the future, just put {{db-author}} on the top of the page and an admin should delete it within a few hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Simon Necronomicon

Thanks for the assist. There's still a great deal more that needs to go as it is all unsourced speculation and a collection of lists. Although a fan of Lovecraft, I can see that per Wikipedia policy many of the articles need to be rationalized. The Lovecraft template is a mess I am currently trying to clean up, although I may need some support with the superfluous articles. We can all be passionate about hobbies, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. Two examples that are targets for deletion are Cthulhu Mythos celestial bodies and Cthulhu Mythos cults. Neither is notable and focus on minute fannish details. Better served on a fan page, but not Wikipedia. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with you on the Simon Necronomicon (I could even see it being very close to deletion-worthy), the other two may well be legitimate topics. Lovecraft has inspired a fair amount of critical and semi-critical analysis; it would not surprise me if, for the cults at least, there weren't one or more articles on "cults in Lovecraft" or the like (heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like "semiotic analysis of shub-niggurath and azathoth cults in the Cthulhu Mythos as allegories of the Great Mother and Great Father" (bear with me, I'm making this up off the top of my head)). The celestial bodies is less likely, as there's less to look at there (though I, again, could imagine some sort of comparative analysis between the mythology of Lovecraft and traditional astrological issues). Once the topic were established as notable, the details could be filled in, and would not need to be verified by secondary sources (the books verify themselves, that is). A quick google scholar search for "Cthulhu cults" turns up 558 articles; the bulk of those are actually just the stories themselves, or otherwise aren't reliable, but there may well be something useful in the details. I don't have access to academic journals, and I'm not really up to taking on such a big project right now...but just wanted to say that there may be something out there.

Also, just as a side note, one thing I've found when dealing with any fan-obsessed subject is that sometimes it's worthwhile to draw a line somewhere on the gray side of notability for the group/list articles. For example, the WP:WikiProject Middle-earth has been doing some work (I'm not associated with them, just happened upon them indirectly) to clean out the fancruft that not unsurprisingly crops up around LotR, etc. For example, there used to be a stub article for every king of Gondor. That's just silly. The project properly decided to get rid of all of them, save for 2 that actually do have real-world sources. However, the group also kept List of kings of Gondor as a single page to hold all of them together. That way, fan-folk get the basic info preserved, while the encyclopedia has less clutter. Similar things happen for minor characters in long-running TV series. By this logic, keeping the cult article may be worthwhile, while the celestial bodies is not, as the latter has critical information connected to the plot details of the series, while the former does not. Again, you can still shoot for deletion or significant trimming, but sometimes...it's better to cross the field by steps, rather than bounds. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Another one is Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos, which is steeped in original research. Like the LOTR example, it has gone way too far. I think master lists may be the way to go. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris Xaver

I didn't pick up that it had been tagged and detagged before, no intention to wheel. Perhaps I should have deleted as spam if anything. Anyway, it's restored now, I'll leave it to you to take any further action Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem--I'll take a look into it in more detail later and see if it can be salvaged (at least as a stub) or if it needs AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana

Hi. Thank you for closing this. I appreciate your carefully consideration of the closure. However I wonder why you redirected the project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music? I thought you were moving it to Moxy's userspace? Was that just a temporary measure? Regards. --Kleinzach 06:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did both. Huh...I just went to look up the policy, and realized I was mistaken. I thought that cross-name space redirects were always forbidden, but, it turns out that they're not (only Article to non-article redirects).

Still, though, I think this is better. Basically, the process was that I redirected it to the music wikiproject, which is the best possible redirect in the same namespace; then, "after" deletion, I accepted Moxy's request that the deleted content be userfied (I actually did the moves/redirect in the opposite order, but that was just for technical reasons) . In other words, if someone were to somehow type "WP:WikiProject Santana" in the searchbox, I don't want them being sent to Moxy's namespace and thinking that this is an actual current Wikiproject. Letting Moxy have it in his namespace means, though, that he can try to recruit more members (such as by posting a request at Talk:Santana or on WT:WikiProject Music), and, if xe can get enough members, easily recreate the wikiproject in Wikipedia space again. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more intuitive to redirect it to the relevant genre project Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music, rather than Wikipedia:WikiProject Music which is an umbrella project for the whole music spectrum. Maybe you looked at the Rock music option? Was there some reason not to go that route? --Kleinzach P.S. Will you also be fixing the Santana project talk page banner template? --Kleinzach 12:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I redirected to the Rock music project as more relevant. I removed the Wikiproject from the template. Do you, by any chance, use AWB? Personally, I haven't had much success with making it do what I want it to do, so I don't use it. That would be the fastest way to handle removing all of the talk page banners...there's over 200, and the thought of doing that by hand makes my head hurt. Twinkle's backlink function won't help, because I actually need to remove the templates, not just the link. I can try using AWB again myself, but I can't do for probably 36 hours or so (I can't run programs like AWB at work because I'm behind my employer's proxy server), and I won't have time at home until tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the redirect. The solution for the banner problem I've used before is to redirect the template Template:WikiProject Santana to Template:WikiProject Rock music. This is not ideal since it potentially leaves a duplicate banner on the talk page. To remove them I think you need to arrange a bot run. (I don't use AWB.) In the meantime, as you are busy, I'll do the template redirect. --Kleinzach 10:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Crashlytics

Thanks for the explanation. I will work on it in a subpage. Would you mind taking a look at it when I've been able to sufficiently put in some time? I do want to make sure things are compliant with wikipedia rules as it is not my intention to write articles that are deleted (and thus waste my time). Thanks! I look forward to further contributing to the wikipedia community. BlueImpact (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to take a look at it. Just let me know when you're ready. Remember, the key is that you need multiple, independent (i.e., not in any way connected to the company or its owners) reliable sources to show that the company is notable. To be honest, since they've only just recent venture capital recently, it is extremely likely that they aren't' notable now. For example, you can't say that they are notable just because they have notable founders/employees (i.e., notability is not inherited). Unless they've already done something particularly noteworthy, you may need to wait before the info can go into the encyclopedia. Let me know if you need any help. Qwyrxian (talk)

Thanks for taking the time to make things clearer for me. I spent some time this morning creating the first cut here User:BlueImpact/Crashlytics. As you can see, I hate having bad marks on my profile and need to correct it right away ;-) As I was doing the research, I found it quite interesting and dug up information from deep inside google to include in the article. Thoughts? I'll try to find time later today to work on it more. Again, appreciate your help. My goal is to contribute more. --BlueImpact (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made comments on the talk page of the sandbox article (at User talk:BlueImpact/Crashlytics). You can respond there and I'll see it...as you'll see, the article seems to me to be right on the edge now. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to help! I responded more specifically on the discussion thread there. I will go ahead and take your suggestions and make the modifications. BlueImpact (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Modifications made! (and added a short question to the discussion thread). BlueImpact (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I submitted it for review at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Crashlytics -- any advice? BlueImpact (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. For now, I'll let the AfC reviewers take over (it can take a few weeks for them to get back to you, as there's currently a very large backlog). If you need help, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:24.98.49.192

Hi Qwyrxian, I reverted on of this user's edits to Argument from authority and noticed that you had already warned him about removing sources and whatnot, so I'm letting you know that the behavior is continuing. Regards. N^oformation ^Talk 18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 72 hours, but sincerely doubt that's the last we've heard from xyr. Xe may not even notice the block, since there were 5 days between the last edit and today's...but I didn't feel comfortable going higher than 72 hours for the first block. If it continues let me know (if I don't see it first) and the blocking length will escalate. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Blendr

Orlady (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

vanniyars are most backward caste in India. please dont put khastriya

I have replied to your comments in the Talk:Vanniyar page under this topic. Please have a look.

Thanks, Kalingarayar (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

More images

Hello Qwyrxian. These two more images (File:Ra.One audio launch.jpg and File:Shahrukh Khan launches 'Ra.One' - Nvidia GEFORCE GTX 560Ti graphic card.jpg) have been uploaded on the Commons and now, for the proper usage token to be assigned, both must be removed from Wikipedia, as they're already being hosted on Commons. Would you please delete them from Wikipedia? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)