User talk:Qworty

Roman Polanski

Hello. The phrase "faces jailtime" is a bit misleading since it's been said that the charges against him would be dropped if he agreed to a public judicial hearing. Nonetheless, he'd still be arrested if he set foot on US soil for having fled the country while facing court procedures. He'd be booked, most likely let out on bail, and then he'd have to go through the song-and-dance to make if official that he's no longer facing criminal charges. Should this be clarified in the article? -98.221.133.96 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Norman Mailer and the Chicago Seven

Does Norman Mailer belong in Category:Chicago Seven. Article in this category are being tagged with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Although he was not one of the Chicago Seven, Mailer gave testimony at the Chicago Seven trial: [1], so in that sense he does belong in the Chicago Seven category. I removed the Chicago project tag from the Mailer talk page because I didn't realize this was the Chicago connection it was in reference to. The only other significant Chicago connections out of Mailer's life are his writings on the '68 Democratic convention and his trysts in the mid-70s with Barbara Norris (later Norris Church) who would become Mailer's sixth wife, but whom he began a relationship with when he was still married to his fourth wife, Beverly Bentley. (A writer such as Saul Bellow is more clearly identified with Chicago--is he part of the Chicago project yet?) Please do restore the Chicago project template to the Mailer talk page if you believe his connections are significant enough.Qworty 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The current strategy is to have these categories tagged within the project. If he falls in these categories he will fall within the project. It looks like he is currently unclassified at Talk:Saul_Bellow but within the project. WRT Mailer, I will retag him. If it is determined he does not properly fall in this list of categories, remove the tag. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Snyder (soldier)

Your extraneous comment regarding Bush in this deletion discussion were not only not appropriate but a violation of WP:BLP. It might also be considered trolling. If you continue in this manner, you may find your account blocked. Rklawton 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, the fact that Bush avoided military service in Vietnam in the early '70s is not exactly recent news. But if you have evidence that he fought in Vietnam, by all means ban me. Qworty 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

For some time now I've been aware of a vandal who has made trolling edits to (as far as I am aware) four pages here. This is a mentally ill person who has been harrassing me online for two years now, in the wake of a public controversy unrelated to this individual. Over this period of time, she has cyberstalked me on half a dozen websites, and then followed me here to Wikipedia to begin vandalizing articles.

As an example, eight times within an hour, she vandalized an article I was working on, actually editing under her ISP number, which has been recorded and reported both to Wikipedia admins and the police in her jurisdiction. All of the edits were reverted by an admin. This did not stop the vandal, who then went on to make other edits violating Wikipedia policies.

This person has a long and documented history of mental illness, and has been in and out of a hospital psych ward. I have received hand-written letters from this individual in which she describes in detail her years of treatment for mental illness and her hospitalization for mental illness. In light of the continued cyberstalking, this evidence too is being provided to the authorities.

A component of this individual's psychosis is that she believes that she is the "victim"; the behavior is engaged in with the goal of achieving "victim status." However, a person who has been cyberstalking me for two years and then followed me to Wikipedia to cyberstalk me further is in no way a victim. That person is a perpetrator.

And this goes, as well, for the rogue admin who followed me here from another site.

You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're going to pick fights, you give up the right to call yourself a victim. Qworty 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Oh but we are not stalkers"

Get honest with yourselves. When you have no legitimate reason for being here and are reading these words, you are a cyberstalker. When you obsessively go through my edit histories, you are a cyberstalker. When you follow me all around the Internet, you are a cyberstalker. So you can cut out the hypocrisy right now. The only reason you are having an issue at all is because you have gone through a half-dozen complicated steps to begin with to read a lot of web pages that you would have no ordinary business reading--because you are a cyberstalker.

Oh, and btw, the next time you trash other people's accomplishments, make sure you have accomplishments in your own lives that are bigger. Oh, 35, 40, 50 years old and don't have any that are bigger? Recognize that this is the real source of your "suffering" and learn to accept reality. Reality is not a tarot fantasy--reality is what is true right now and has been true for years. Qworty 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored

Hi qworty, I restored Women and children. I previewed this link a while ago and meant to fix it up. I hope you will agree that it useful when I get it started. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)/[tyop]14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

winger

I stand corrected - sorry! Nothing on imdb about a banana, however (and is that detail really necessary?) Tvoz |talk 23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the banana was the highpoint of her appearance in this soft-core outing, according to most critics who have deigned to discuss it. Qworty 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok We all make mistakes, even if there so...........silly=)

hey qwrourtyatyrtyr7t whatever it is,I was talking about wealthiest counties in the U.S. [[2]]NOT HIGHEST PER CAPITA INCOME.Um yea it kind of says it in the OC,MI article.I even copied and pasted it here but look at the article yourself"Oakland County is Michigan's wealthiest county. It is the second wealthiest county in the nation."Sorry but MY marian county wasn't on the list for quite a while.It's ok we all make mistakes u'll get over it well TaTa for Now TheCoolOne99 04:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, regarding your comments at Talk:Stregheria: I found a few good points in your post, and agree that the article needs a lot of work. However the bulk of your posts were spent in a string of insults against "witches", couched in self-righteousness ("I am not afraid of witches", "I am interested in improving the article, not in starting a flame war"). These inflammatory comments and your attitude of us vs. them have no place in Wikipedia, where we are trying to promote collaboration and cooperation and make it a pleasant place for all editors. It's hard enough having your work reverted without being insulted into the bargain (irrational, aging, overweight, etc, etc.).

If you really are keen on improving the article then please do so. However if you wish to remain an editor, you will desist from attacking other groups here, no matter how "marginalised" you consider them to be. You can consider this a formal warning, and I ask that you have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy. (This post is largely a repeat of the response I give at Talk:Stregheria.) Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Souness

If you read Graeme Souness, and decided Graeme Souness is barely notable... well, I don't think the term has yet been coined for that level of deletionist, I wish I had your balls :) Have you checked out meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians? I'm a card-carrying member and would be proud to have you on board. Anyway, I put the article up for deletion, and agree that Aggie Moffat is gruel-thin and a long way from WP:BIO. But she's not a cleaning lady, she never worked for Graeme Souness, and nobody in the debate is claiming it should be kept because she did. Relax.. Deiz talk 11:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jena 6

Your comments on the Jena 6 article show just one side. There have been fights incited by both races. I believe keeping it abstract, as in my version, allows people to read on and see all of the happenings in the rest of the article. Ironman5247 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been fights incited by members of both races, but it has been demonstrated that the blacks get the harsher legal treatment. That's the entire point, and the reason this is such a controversy. Qworty 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As you have it stated, it looks like black people did nothing wrong, and it casts them in a holy light. That is simply not the case. They assaulted the white kid. 71.71.200.176 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but I have never stated that black people have never done anything wrong, nor did I make any religious reference whatsoever about lighting. Qworty 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six

You're doing a great job, I'm floored by the lack of respect some of the other editors have shown towards you. I was so surprised to find this article in pretty good shape: it looks like it is in good shape mostly thanks to you. Great job!

I came by in response to a third opinion, but I will try to stay and help where I can. futurebird 12:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I greatly appreciate it. Let me know whenever I can be of help to you. Qworty 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Gee, he only works at the school and lives in the town, unlike you.

I'd delete this. It's a personal attack and it will hinder your very reasonable request.

I'm sorry to be such a dork about manners, bUT if I'm going to complain about others users being rude on this page I need to do to you too.

futurebird 13:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove talk page comments.

Please do not remove talk page comments at Talk:Jena Six. Comments are generally not to be removed unless they are egregious personal attacks, threats (physical and legal), or commercial spam. There is no policy or guideline that allows the removal of talk page comments: if they are disputed, you should leave them in. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Where are you finding all of this great new info for the Jena article? I didn't know about the religious speech thing at all. I wish I could find some more information on the night that the students and some parents went to a school board meeting and were unable to get the noose issue on the agenda. I'd like to know more details about what happened that night, do you have any sources? futurebird 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts

What are your thoughts on this? Can you help me reword this sentence so they stop deleting it? futurebird 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! futurebird 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumond wikipedia article lawsuit

I am not sure that it belongs on the Huckabee page. Or, at least, under criticism of Mike Huckabee. There is no proof that Mike Huckabee was the responsible party for the edits, although a Huckabee staffer may be resposible. Jmegill 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your work on the Jena Six article

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the great work and effort you have put into the Jena Six article. As the indefatigable editor working tirelessly to improve the quality of Wikipedia - I hereby recognize your work and award thee with the first and foremost original BARNSTAR! Eqdoktor 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean it, its hard work (even if its a voluntary) and you encounter a lot of nasty stuff out there. I hardly heard about the Jena 6 a few weeks ago but if you (and the other editors) had to put up with half the bull waste products I have seen in the edits, I have to say, no one deserves a Barnstar better. --Eqdoktor 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Arthur Bremer are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. Anastrophe 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Please do not make edits like this one that change the content of the article without citing a reliable source. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Romney hasn't changed his positions on these issues? Of course he has, and there are plenty of sources out there to prove it. Qworty (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that he "suddenly" changed them, and that his current positions are in line with LDS teachings. It is your responsibility to provide sources for both of these claims, see WP:V. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify my comment. It's important to separate Romney's personal or religious views on topics from his view on what the government should actually be doing. His personal views are surely in line with LDS teachings, but he may still think that some things are none of the government's business. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say his positions are in-line with LDS teachings--that's from the original edit. Did you write the original? If so, don't you believe what you yourself wrote? Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that I've made up the fact that he's changed his positions on gay rights and abortion? Come on, there are hundreds and hundreds of sources for this. Qworty (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that Romney's beliefs about how people should live their lives have changed. As far as I know, they have always been in line with LDS teachings. What has changed is how much he thinks the government should get involved, and that does not belong under the heading "Religious beliefs". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You're not Romney, are you? Your circumlocutions sound exactly like his. The guy said what was necessary to get elected in liberal Massachusetts, then changed many of his tunes when it was time to run for president. That's what happened. If he believed one thing but acted in the opposite way, which is what you are clearly saying, then he's an even bigger liar and hypocrite than I've thought him to be. But regardless of what I think, the facts speak for themselves. Qworty (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to be clear. Like just about every other government official, Romney's personal, religious beliefs are not necessarily the same as his beliefs on how much the government should get involved in people's lives. For example, just because a president does not believe in fornication does not mean that that president will try to pass legislation to ban fornication. There is a division between religion and government, and it is not fair for you to say that because Romney's opinion on how much the government should get involved has changed, then his underlying beliefs about what people should and should not do have changed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what his "beliefs" are, since you are not a mind-reader (unless of course you are Joseph Smith). The only thing we have to go on is Romney's public pronouncements. And in these pronouncements he has shifted his positions--you can call them "beliefs" or "opinions," it doesn't really matter--he has shifted his positions, beliefs, and opinions for the sake of political expediency. These are FACTS about Romney, and they are extremely well-sourced hundreds upon hundreds of times. Qworty (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to understand. Just because Romney thinks that people should pray before meals does not mean that he is going to push for legislation to require everyone to pray before meals. Just because Romney thinks that gay marriage is unrighteous does not necessarily mean that he is going to push for legislation to ban it. Do you see how beliefs on government restriction don't have to correspond to personal beliefs of right and wrong? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is that he's a hypocrite. He believes one thing, but advocates its opposite. However, you are leaving out the fact that he is a flip-flopper as well, since his public positions have shifted. So there are actually two problems with Romney: 1) He sometimes advocates for the irrationality of Mormon dogma, 2) He shifts his positions according to the political wind. Any way you slice it, this guy is not even remotely qualified to be President of the United States. Half the time what he believes is crazy, and the other half he's busy changing it anyway. Everything about him is a fraud, starting with the fact that most people don't know that his birth name is actually "Willard." Qworty (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that I'm not getting anywhere here. Maybe one day you'll understand the difference between personal choice and the government making choices for you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want Mitt Romney making choices for me. I really don't care if he's making the choices out of his religious or political beliefs. I do realize that all of his beliefs are fractured and contradictory and ever-changing. But whatever those beliefs happen to be at any given moment, I don't want Mitt Romney acting on them in any way that has anything to do with my existence as a human being and a United States citizen. Qworty (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now we've gotten completely off-topic. This isn't about whether or not you're going to vote for Mitt Romney. I'll continue the discussion below. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, please be aware of the three-revert rule when reverting edits like you did on the article Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not 3RR unless the edits are identical. Qworty (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what happened here. You asked me to provide sources for my edits, and I began to do so. While I was still in the middle of doing so, you reverted me. I had to revert once again in order to complete the sourcing that you had asked me to do in the first place. I wasn't reverting you for the sake of reverting you or to engage in edit warring, which I don't believe in. I was trying to comply fully with your request for sourcing--and there were multiple sources involved. You can't ask another editor to do you a sourcing favor and then interrupt him while he's in the middle of doing it for you and then claim 3RR! That's not good faith. In the future, if you want me to help you with an article, give me the time to complete the task, especially when it is a complicated one that takes a good amount of sourcing research. It is considered good etiquette around here, by the way, to allow an editor to complete a task before jumping all over him. Qworty (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to Mitt Romney

What I'm saying is that there's a distinction between religious and political beliefs. You are saying that Romney's religious and political beliefs are the same, that whenever his political beliefs have changed it's because his religious beliefs have changed. That is simply false. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify how I'm using these terms:

• Political belief: how much the government should get involved in people's lives
• Religious belief: how people should act whether or not the government is forcing them to

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that Mitt Romney HAS NO consistent religious or political beliefs whatsoever that are discernible from his public utterances. I'm not saying his religious beliefs and political beliefs are the same. I'm saying that most of the time they have NOT been the same, making him a hypocrite, and the rest of the time it's been impossible to tell whether they are the same, making him a cipher. He has lied about his religious beliefs AND his political beliefs so many times that nobody can tell what any of them are anymore. He is an empty suit that will tell any lie about anything so long as it will advance him toward the White House. His lies are both factual untruths and lies of omission, such as his refusal ever to admit in public that Ted Kennedy kicked his ass 58% to 41% in 1994. Does Mitt not mention this because of his religious beliefs? or because of his political beliefs? What difference does it make! The fact is that Willard lies that he is a "winner" when the fact is that one of the most liberal senators in the country kicked his ass. I could go on and on and on about this, and please don't ask me to. I honestly believe that most of everything that Mitt Romney has ever said in public is either a lie or a contradiction. And of course he doesn't want the American people to know that he is the product of polygamous unions... Qworty (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Romney's Religious Beliefs: Saying anything about religion that will get people to vote for him.

Definition of Romney's Political Beliefs: Saying anything about public policy that will get people to vote for him.

Sometimes his stated religious and political beliefs are the same. Sometimes they are different. Sometimes he is hiding the truth. Sometimes he is lying. It all depends on the political circumstances at any given moment. The only thing he stands for, in terms of religion or politics or anything else, is doing and saying whatever it will take to become the most powerful man in the world. Qworty (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We should be reporting only what the sources report, not our own beliefs. You are obviously pushing an agenda in the article. I would recommend finding something else to edit that you do not feel so strongly about. Vassyana (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While you're at it, why don't you provide identical admonitions on the talk pages of all of Romney's paid and unpaid advocates? You're going to be pretty busy, since there are dozens of them here. Qworty (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm going to give a third opinion on the talk page at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. I would recommend that you guys move your discussion over there, since this talk should be taking place on the talk page where the edits are actually happening. In doing so, you can get more opinions on the edits. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your third opinion is of course welcome. However, I don't think the discussion on this page belongs on any article talk pages, since this discussion is not aimed toward the improvement of any article in particular. Rather, this is a discussion that another editor started in order to defend Mitt Romney's habit of believing one thing and then going out and doing the opposite. I have no idea why the editor wants to have this discussion on my personal talk page--or anywhere else--but I don't mind obliging him. Qworty (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP violations

I know it is on a talk page, but it is in a section where proposed wording that is to be included in the main article is being worked on, so BLP still applies. I've removed two of your edits on Talk:Mitt Romney as BLP violations.[3][4] Unless you can provide a reliable source that shows that Mitt Romney accepted his church's racist policy, then any addition of LDS's racist policy in connection with Mitt Romney is original research and a violation of BLP. Please do not add this information again unless you can find a reliable source that directly links Mitt Romney to this racist policy. Please consider this a first level warning, continued addition of content that violates BLP may result in you being blocked from editing for a period of time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If he accepted the policy, then he was a racist. If he went on a mission to France to spread Mormon dogma but did not actually believe in it, then he was a hypocrite. But don't worry, I won't be adding any of that to the page(s) in question. It doesn't really matter much in the long run, in any case, since there's no chance this side of frozen Cumorah that he'll ever become President of the United States. I imagine the article will be unfrozen by January 20, 2009, and Willard's loss will be duly noted without a single BLP violation coming into play, talk page or no talk page. Meanwhile, here's a further perspective on the issue [5] Qworty (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Quick note (since this is just a talk page): I'm not even remotely an Obama supporter (far from it), but I can only hope your prediction from 4 years ago holds true. Pretty much everything you said in the section above this one has been borne out as true: he's a terrible candidate and has no place in the office of POTUS. A little over a year ago I couldn't imagine myself saying this, but, almost unbelievably, the GOP managed to find, prop up, and cheat their way into nominating a candidate who is even worse than Obama, and for all the same reasons. This years' election is a no-win scenario for America. Besieged (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • LOL. Yeah, I've had Romney nailed for a number of years now. The man stands for nothing and has never stood for anything. The only thing he's ever been interested in is becoming the most powerful man in the world. And I am grateful that he is going to fail yet again at that ambition. Qworty (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Making arguments on talk page

Use of article pages for the pure purpose of making a point are not acceptable, continued inclusion of the underwear issue may result in a block. Please stop and make your arguments on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made my arguments on the talk page. [6]. You are the one who is reverting without making your arguments on the talk page.Qworty (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your valued donation and vigilance in arguing about Mitt Romney's temple garment, colloquially known as underwear, I grant you The Oddball Barnstar. Herein, I dub, "[the] refusal to discuss [a] notable fact is in itself notable" as Qworty's law. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, a Barnstar has an added real world value of one beer, if you visit Houston, Texas you've got one on me. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I am really honored. Unfortunately, I cannot share a beer with you, since, like Mitt Romney, I neither drink nor smoke, which, according to those who champion Romney on these points, proves that I am absolutely a fantastic and infallible human being and, aw shucks, what the heck, let's just come out and draw the full logical comparison--because I neither drink or smoke, I should become President of the United States!!! Or at least the President of the Mormon church, assuming I can find some utterly correct and magical underwear. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

This is unacceptable. Please check that your nasty comments are directed toward edits and not editors. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are objecting to an exchange in which you did not take part, and which the other party has not objected to, in which I did not use profanity or any other abusive language. Meanwhile, you have replied to other comments of mine with the words “bullshit” [7] and “What the hell are you talking about?” [8] and yet again “What the hell are you talking about?” [9] Are you prepared to take your own counsel? Because I find your personal and vulgar abuse of me extremely offensive. Qworty (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. You reverted three times [10][11][12][13]to include a BLP WEIGHT violation on Mormon underwear so that we'd remove a line you don't like about alcohol. You wrote another BLP violation about Romney promoting the racist doctrines of his church. You've implied that those opposed to you are working for Romney's campaign or are part of a Mormon conspiracy, and you seem to have believed that I was Mormon and should prove Romney's not going to hell, yet almost every comment suggest you're the POV warrior. And this doesn't even dip into your unhelpful smug mocking. Any means to get your edits more scrutiny are fine by me. Post my naughty words far and wide. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 08:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally, I will try not to swear in reply to your comments anymore. I'm not trying to offend you, y'know. Cool Hand Luke 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on the controversial Mitt Romney article seems to have gotten you pretty worked up. OK. I apologize for inventing the Mormon church. I apologize for inventing Mormon underwear. I apologize for inventing Mitt Romney. I apologize for inventing the history of his church, including the historical attitudes towards African Americans. I apologize for inventing all of the controversies relating to Romney, his church, and his polygamous ancestors. Obviously none of these controversies ever existed before I came to Wikipedia, and I am to blame for the fact that all of these controversies, and so many additional ones, have gotten out into the world and now trouble that poor man and his struggling campaign. I apologize for all of these things, and so does Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, and the men's room attendant at the Republican National Committee, who I believe is Larry Craig. You are quite right to castigate me for creating all of these issues. Qworty (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about those issues—find someone else to take your sarcastic apology. I care about WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP. Just don't violate those in the future, and stop edit warring. Thanks Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not exist in written language, as sarcasm is tonally based. Is the following sarcastic? "Yeah, right." You can't tell because you haven't heard a vocal intonation. What you are referring to, regarding the written word, is irony or perhaps satire. But whatever the case, I apologize further--for trying to cool things down with humor! Qworty (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Since no one has taken it upon themselves to notify you. Arzel has started a thread on WP:AN/I regarding your editing on Mitt Romney. You may participate in this thread by selecting the following link [14]. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on my talk page. I see what you're saying about it being about a dead person, and I think your edits are fair. But I'll give you the same warning: don't revert again or you'll face a block. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I had no intention of reverting. I appreciate your input. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Just as an FYI, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR regarding recent editing of the Mitt Romney article. Notifying Arzel as well. Mbisanz (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, since I didn't 3RR on the article. My initial edit added new information, rather than reverting previous information. [15] Qworty (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored it to be more accurate. I saw all those "undo"s in the edit history and didn't connect that your first one was a content addition. Mbisanz (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Refactored it"? What you mean is that you've withdrawn your false accusation without apologizing for it. I do thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant this comment to serve as my apology [16] . I did miscount and wrongly include you in the 3RR report. Mbisanz (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is very pretty html, and I do acknowledge your good faith and give you thanks, but now let's see how it looks in English: "I . . . am . . . sorry." LOL! Qworty (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this instead: stop viewing three reverts as your entitlement. That's the second time in as many days that you've gone up to the limit. (Previously [17] [18] [19] [20].) If you keep revert warring a block may be appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 08:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but most of us are going on vacation soon, thus reducing attention to the article in question, and I doubt that it will be of any interest, except as a bit of historical esoterica, beyond the first week of January. However, I have enjoyed my association with you and the other good people who have labored on this. As the staffers in Florida and New York will be saying soon, "It's been very nice working with you." Qworty (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

George Romney

Qworty - Your edits on Mitt Romney do introduce material which is irrelevant to Mitt himself, as opposed to his father. You also clearly are edit warring on the article.

While you are a generally positive contributor, you're exceeding reasonable behavior in this case. Further edit warring or attempts to include irrelevant material in the article may result in blocks on your account.

It's not whitewashing Mormonism or Mormon history to insist that articles on current presidential candidates only include relevant personal information and not drag their family history or religion's history through the mud.

Please pay more attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith comments, but I am not the one who introduced the George Romney material into the religious background section in the Mitt Romney article. All I did was add one reference from the New York Times today. In any case, all George Romney references in that section have now been removed. Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Your conduct in the above discussion is coming perilously close to crossing the line of civility, if it hasn't alreaady been crossed. Your allegations that somehow the information about Mormon underwear be included is almost certainly a violation of the official policy of WP:Undue weight, which I very strongly suggest you read. Your allegation that we should include which planet Romney will rule in a succeeding life is possibly a personal attack on the subject, and cleerly a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Your conduct in general is basically counterproductive, seeking to ignore real questions raised in favor of continuing to advance your own clearly biased, unsupportable conclusions. I very strongly recommend that you begin to adhere more closely to the various extant policies regarding discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been perfectly civil. There is a difference between civility and RS. I am not responsible for the tone of RS, or to what extend others might have issues with RS. I did not raise the Mormon underwear issue--that issue has been raised by RS in the news media who pose the question as to whether or not a man who believes that his underwear has magical powers should become President of the United States. I am not raising that issue--I am reporting that others have. It is not undue weight because I never recommended anything more than a single sentence on the subject. I did not invent Mormon underwear, I did not invent Mitt Romney, and I did not invent any of the RS that have reported on these issues. The issue of what "planet" he might "rule" after his term as president was also not invented by me, but reported by RS, and it is not a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL because Mormons started talking about that particular belief long before you or I were born. None of this is my own "conclusion"; I am merely doing what a good Wikipedia editor does, which is to report the facts as verified by RS. Rather than falsely classifying RS as my own opinion, you can read more about these issues here: [21]. If you'd like a dozen more sources I'd be happy to provide them. Our job is to report the facts, and this can certainly be done without undue weight. Finally, I have not "ignored the real questions" having to do with the article. Consensus has already been achieved on the Religious Background section of the article, pertaining both to its general content and wording, and you are free to try to break that consensus at any time by being bold and moving and/or breaking up the material on your own. I doubt that this would lead to new consensus; rather, the original editors who achieved the consensus would certainly revert your edits, as they have done time and time again since the consensus was reached. Qworty (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe what you have said above, then I have to conclude that you are far from familiar with all relevant policies, which include WP:BLP, WP:Undue weight, the asociated essay WP:Recentism, WP:CRYSTALBALL, particularly the last as you made one comment on the talk page specifically indicating that you believe the subject has already lost the race, which is clearly not at all established. I very strongly suggest that you review all relevant wikipedia policies before you seek to make statements about what you, in what I believe is a very ill-informed opinion, believe the article should contain, as much of what you have specified you believe should be included very possibly could run directly against one or more of those policies. Thank you. And I also urge you to once again review WP:CONSENSUS, which indicates that consensus can change, and that content should be made to reflect existing consensus, not former consensus. And, if as you threaten there will be reversions, pages can be protected to prevent such edit-warring as you seem to be threatening. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not threatening edit warring or anything else. I didn't edit on the article for three weeks, a time during which others attempted to make the edits you are in favor of, and those edits were reverted by other editors who were part of the original consensus. They weren't reverted by me, and I won't have to revert similar edits if there's another attempt to unilaterally overthrow the consensus. You might believe that that consensus will eventually change, but that is nothing more or less than WP:CRYSTALBALL on your part. The fact is, we already have a consensus. Finally, stop trying to wikilawyer or make this personal. All of the policies in the world don't change a single RS about Romney. I am not reporting my own views but those of others. This is nothing more than a content dispute, and a mighty small one at that. Please try to keep that in perspective, especially as you are a new admin and admins have special restrictions and duties when they are involved in content disputes. Best of luck to you. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own statement above clearly indicates that you are at best unfamiliar with a majority of relevant policies. I suggest once again that you make yourself at least passingly familiar with the policies I have linked to for your benefit here and elsewhere. WP:Undue weight, with which you are seemingly at best unfamiliar, is also an official policy, for instance. I suggest once again you review that policy, and all the other relevant policies, rather than simply, repetitiously, citing the one and only policy which seems to support your own apparent position. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't say that something is undue weight simply because you are an admin who has volunteered to become involved in a rather minor content dispute. Wikipedians far more experienced than you or I engage in lengthy discussions, every single hour and day, as to whether or not specific content disputes constitute undue weight issues. You are far from the final authority on whether or not a specific content dispute contains a case of undue weight, crystal balling, BLP, consensus, or any other policy. The application of policy is debated all the time, and just because you are an admin who has chosen to become involved in a minor content dispute does not give you the right to throw any additional rhetorical weight around in the course of that discussion. I am well familiar with the policies you cite; I merely disagree with how you are choosing to apply them in a specific content dispute. Big yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn. It happens on Wikipedia a thousand times every hour. I happen to have been the victim of BLP and undue-weight violations on Wikipedia myself, and good luck trying to find an admin who's willing to step in and help. No, far more common is the admin who wants to wikilawyer policies during content disputes which he has volunteered to engage in. However, if you are serious, can I take it that I can report BLP and undue-weight violations to you and you will take appropriate action? Or are you interested in the policies only when you can use them in content disputes against editors who are not admins and with whom you disagree regarding relatively small issues? Qworty (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments once again demonstrate an at best weak grasp not only of policy, but actually of events. I am not an admin, and won't be one for an hour or so. I responded to this matter because, as I indicated to any number of people, I received a message regarding it on my user page. In general, as one of the more active members of the Biography project, I do respond to messages left there and on my talk page regarding biographies, particularly, as seems to be the case here, policy states fairly clearly what the preferred outcome is, as it does in this case. Your attempts at misdirection and insult here and elsewhere are hardly in your favor. Several reasonble comments indicating that your own position is at best weak have been presented by me and others. You have yet, that I can see, respond to any of them. This very much calls into question whether you are a neutral party, as you state but which some of your own comments call into question. Regarding your own unfounded accusations above, I see no reason to respond to them, as they are at least once again bordering on violation of WP:CIVIL. Please try to respond directly to the points made, rather than continuing to indulge what very clearly seem to be attempts at misdirection and impugning the integrity of others. And, if you had bothered to read the page in which I indicated an interest in becoming an admin, you will note that I haven't shown an interest in protecting pages. However, if the kind of edit war you seemed to threaten above does take place, it would be a fairly certain event that someone else would. I once again urge you to become familiar with things that are relevant to the discussions you seem to want to engage in, as it seems to me at least fairly clear that you are not familiar with a number of relevant matters. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to respond to every point you've raised. As for "the kind of edit war you seemed to threaten above," I have told you that I have not threatened an edit war, have no interest in engaging in one, and will not revert the edits that you are talking about. If you move the Religious Background section to another area, or break it up into smaller pieces, you have my personal pledge that I will not revert the edits. I do believe that other editors, those who were involved in the original consensus, would do so, however, but of course I do not control their actions. To your larger point: If you feel that I have ignored something that you have raised, by all means restate it specifically here and I will address it. Qworty (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notices

Thank you for alerting those who have supported your position. However, your use of the word "threatening" may well constitute a violation of the behavior guideline regarding canvassing. I suggest you use more neutral language. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But your use of the same word above, even after I informed you that no threat was involved, does not violate policy? Qworty (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Is making good with his threat. He is actively disrupting the article and moving the religious background section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I am leaving wikipedia. [22] Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

HEy Talk:Mitt Romney

It's late, I'll have to look at your (and any other) points tomorrow night. I am not sure how much help I will be, but hopefully everybody will continue to work together. TableManners^C·U·T 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable donation of your time to look over this complex matter. I, and I'm sure others, will greatly value your input. Qworty (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been boycotting reading articles and news on the coming election, I think I jumped into a maelstrom. I hope it helps moving everybody toward commenting on the content and not the contributors. Other than that, I don't know how much help I can be. TableManners^C·U·T 13:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unexpected compliment, but I honestly do try to keep balanced. I call policy like I see it. Parties in edit wars almost always label opposition as vandalism. It's one of the most common mistakes on the project, and I always try to point it out—even when it comes from "my side." Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hinckley

I know it sounds silly but "this guy is dead" seems a little rude. I am sure it wasn't intentional but could you say it a different way? Thanks and thank you for time in updating the articleMantion (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Death of notable animals

Where an animal (such as Ah Meng) already has a Wikipedia article, then its death is reported at Recent deaths. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Epstein

Sorry, but I have to point out that ""all right"" is not the same as ""alright"". :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right they aren't the same thing--because there's no such word as "alright"! Qworty (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)

Thanks to your AfD of Chris mounsey, I found this one. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Take a look and see if my AfD nom was justified. DarkAudit (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

You recently edited List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni to remove a "non-notable entry". Note that at the moment, the relevant article still exists, regardless of your opinion of its notability or lack thereof. If the article was deleted as non-notable, then you could remove the entry. Until then, such an act is unwise, and not generally viewed favorably. For the time being, I've reverted your edit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As I correctly expected, the article was scrubbed away, so I've removed the related nonsense: [23]. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Robert Case II

I can't have speedied it, I'm not an admin. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lara Pulver

You recently removed a block of text from the article about the actress Lara Pulver, stating it as being unreferenced and not notable. I have restored this text, due to the fact that despite your personal opinion, the majority of people in the UK would certainly consider performing in a string of West End and national tours of musicals to be more than notable for Wikipedia, and also because I have provided a source for all those theatrical credits, with the inclusion of a link to her CV, taken directly from her official website. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Belen Jesuit

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Belen Jesuit. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Callelinea (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Del Junco

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Del Junco. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Callelinea (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Callelinea (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society

How did you understand the article may have WP:COI problem? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a COI report on it right now, and one of the professors mentioned in the article has been editing the article. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Covington

Thanks for your message. I am not really sure what else we can do. user:Covingtons and user:BanThisNameillMake10More have both been blocked. I guess we could file a sockpuppet report for user:Random667. Not sure what we can do about the IP addresses. I guess we could also semi-protect the page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mira Lobe

Hello, Qworty. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Mira Lobe because the article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. While it is a very short article, it has sufficient context to make its subject understood, which is the requirement for surviving WP:CSD#A1. :). Please consider other means for addressing ongoing concerns. Feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Jody Kraus

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Kraus? I think the references demonstrate that he is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination)

The page on Xlibris has been totally rewritten. You might want to reconsider your !vote here, especially given that I've withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lee K. Abbott and the Conflict of Interest

I don't personally have a conflict of interest over this article. Indeed, I've only recently come across his writing in a copy of the Norton Anthology of Short Fiction. I noticed he didn't have an article here, so created a stub. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for getting back to me. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I did the Abbott work and I don't know the guy either. All I did was add biographical information about place of birth, correct the place where Abbott teaches (at Ohio State, not Ohio University), and add the titles of the books, all of which I've read, as has everyone I know who reads short stories and literary journals. I didn't source them, but it was a stub that was just started, anyway, and it seems that these are common bits of information, findable on the book jackets. So I am somewhat confused about the COI tag and the rebuke on the userpage of the IP I was using. Would you be willing to revert these for now, or at least remove the tags, which seem to me to be overkill? 131.183.81.184 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied on your talk page. Qworty (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for responding. I got all the bio information from the dust jacket copy on the book All Things, All at Once, and the books information from the books list from the front matter near the copyright page.131.183.81.184 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DrHeLpErZx ANI

I clarified what I did on the ANI page. The first warning, the one you linked, was not the proper warning to give at the time. I replaced it with an AfD tag removal warning. DarkAudit (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. No problem! Qworty (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I would like to ask you what qualifies you to remove his Grace's article or addition to Mangup? You demand proof, yet you have not contacted His Holiness by way of mail or posted web address to verify which you insist is your only purpose. Lets be fair to all and ask for proof but when it is presented lets do our part. You are most quick to edit. SGraf stefan (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Phil Farrand

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phil Farrand. The Wikipedia: Spam and Wikipedia: External links prohibit links to sites that are self-promotional or primarily sell goods or services. They do not call for blanking of biographical material, such as a section that appropriately mentions the fiction work of the BLP subject. I've restored the material you deleted, but after looking over the above policies, I de-linked the book titles that led to Lulu. I also did so with the ones that led to Amazon, which you left alone for some reason. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sally Morningstar

First of all, no, I am not Sally Morningstar. Second, it was not vandalizing to delete the speedy delete tag that was up there; in fact, that's exactly what you are supposed to do if you object to the deletion. It said right in that tag, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason."

What happens then, if the person nominating it feels strongly enough, he/she puts a regular nomination for deletion up instead which does NOT have a 5-day limit, and a discussion takes place on a designated page. That's what's happening now.

You, on the other hand, really should not have deleted Sally Morningstar's name from the list of occult writers, since she is one and has 15 books to her name, and still has a wikipedia article. Wait until the discussion is over.

By the way, please see my reply to your statement "None of her books is from a notable press, and self-published people don't belong on Wikipedia." Actually, her books ARE from notable presses, and as far as I can see, NONE of them are self-published. You'll find descriptions of and links to information about these notable presses on that page[24]. In all fairness, if that is your argument, you should reverse your vote. Rosencomet (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for AMLFILMS

This guy just won't let it go. He barged in on an already closed AfD claiming the "production certificates" the station gave out were more prestigious than an actual Emmy. He gave a name to Philippe on his talk page that is remarkably similar to the name of Mr. Lacey's father in an earlier edit of the article. You're not supposed to bite the newbies, but when policy, procedures, and guidelines have to be explained over and over again, a good chomp is justified. DarkAudit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Wow. I just read his comments at the closed AfD. Talk about WP:NPA! And he thinks WP:COI is a person? This guy is definitely heading for a block if he keeps it up. Qworty (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

JWR

Hi Qworty, there is an ongoing discussion about your friend James Wesley Rawles and notability, referencing, sourcing etc over at my talk. Cheers, Deiz talk 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Wiki Editor Legotech is presently drafting a new bio page on Rawles (see the discussion at Wiki Admistrator Deiz's talk page) , please refrain removing the references to JWR on other pages, at least for now. And even if he fails to meet the threshold of notability to justify having his own bio page, it does not negate the impact of his books on the survivalist movement. He is is still a widely-read survivalist author. Thx, Trasel (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted through due process, hence it's OK to remove backlinks. Until such time as he has a policy-friendly article, he's currently "nn" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Of course this does not mean that he should not be mentioned in the survivalism article, just that he should not be redlinked, or leaned upon too heavily in references. By the way Trasel, if you are adding a new comment to an existing discussion, would you mind indenting, rather than adding several empty lines and a row of hyphens? Thanks, Deiz talk 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC

It is ironic that the article about Rawles got deleted just at the same time that he is getting so much media attention. See, for example, this piece today in Wired News: http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/04/its-a-sudden-he.html When removing dead backlinks, please try to avoid the collateral damage caused by removing entire paragraphs. A couple of your recent edits (which I undid) also removed references to Mel Tappan, Joel Skousen, and Jeff Cooper, who are just as well-known in the survivalist community as Rawles, but that still have existing wiki bio pages. Thanks for investing the time to help improve these pages. Trasel (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This afternoon Rawles posted to his blog that he's being interviewed on Fox News tonight, regarding food shortages and food storage, along with Brendt Arends from The Wall Street Journal. Perhaps somebody from Wikipedia should warn Fox News that they are interviewing someone that is non-notable! Trasel (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You admit yourself that they're interviewing him "regarding food shortages and food storage." That's STILL not a news story about him. You've been looking and looking and looking and you still can't come up with anything, LOL! Qworty (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is laughable are Wiki's notability standards, that defy logic and common sense. Clearly, if it can be demonstrated that someone is a subject matter expert, widely quoted, widely known, an opinion molder, influential in their field, and a published author, then they are indeed notable. Wikipedia's clinging to pre-Internet conventions of judging notability, along with the insistence that only PRINT references matter is something akin to limiting college students writing term papers to using only manual typewriters and using only file drawers full of newspaper clippings (a la the 1960s). These are absurdities. Trasel (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, any schmo can start his own blog, pay a vanity press for "publication," talk about himself on a bunch of Internet forums, and then get himself interviewed a few times in the press. None of it means a goddam thing. There are literally hundreds of millions of people who can do this stuff, and quite possibly millions who have. There really is nothing special about it. Qworty (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like he paid to get published. I've corresponded with Rawles, so I got the scoop: The original publisher of his book was called Huntington House. They were not a "vanity" publisher. They paid advances on royalties. Rawles switched to X-Libris (which IS a P.O.D. publisher that does some vanity publishing) only because Huntington House was mis-managed and went out of business. X-Libris was just the quickest way to get the book back into print, to meet the demand. During the time that it was out of print, used copies were selling on eBay for $40+. His book was consistently the best selling title for Huntington House, and now it is in the top ten sellers list for X-Libris. It has been in their top ten for sales for the past two years. Rawles mentioned that nearly 90,000 people downloaded the draft edition, and since then the various commercial editions (I think that he called it a "trade" paperback, whatever that means) have sold another 30,000 copies. He didn't buy his success. He earned it. Am I a fan? You bet I am. I am sick and tired of seeing cartoon characters no-name rock bands being considered notable enough for a wiki page. But at teh same time someone like Jim Rawles get railroaded off wikipedia, through un-even application of the rules. This reeks of bias. Trasel (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I biased against Xlibris? You're damned right I am, because they are a scum outfit. But if you feel that strongly about Rawles, which you obviously do, then why don't you and others write some articles about him and get them published in legitimate venues that exercise true editorial oversight? It seems to me it wouldn't be that hard to do. If you got a handful of good ones, it would be no problem using them as WP:RS for a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, if this guy is so big, why do you care about Wikipedia anyway? If he's supposedly the only guy who ever made money through Xlibris, then it doesn't sound like he needs WP to drive his sales. You must think WP has some value if you want him to be on here. Qworty (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It will greatly aid this debate if you guys chill out a bit. Rest assured this process is being watched by neutral eyes, and the only issue at hand is verifying JWR's notability. Personal feelings about his work and philosophies, and opinions about his publisher are not going to score points. At best, this side debate is irrelevant and, imho, counter productive. Let's see how the sandbox article Legotech in putting together takes shape. In the meantime, if you guys could work on other things and agree to compromise on limited, unlinked mentions for JWR in the survivalism articles, which I think are appropriate, that would be really helpful. Thanks guys, Deiz talk 07:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, Deiz. Thanks for the note. Qworty (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, Deiz. Sorry if it sounded like we were squabbling. Legotech's article will most likely be free of any bias, since he is ostensibly neutral toward the subject. I'm admittedly a fan of nearly all of my biography subjects. (You will note that nearly all of them are sre survivalists with writing credits--like Jeff Cooper, Mel Tappan, Cresson Kearny, and Joel Skousen.) I find even the unlikable ones such as Kurt Saxon and Ragnar Benson are at least *interesting* people--even if I find their racist views despicable.) I appreciate it when more experienced neutral editors can step back and take the long view of any subject. Trasel (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Weeks

Thanks for the message. The article is different to the deleted version, and at leasts asserts notability (claims to have won awards), so I don't know that it is speediable. I'll leave the tag there, though, and see what another admin reckons. _GB^T/C 10:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hi Qworty. While the confusion is understandable, you should probably have a look at WP:Primary source. If the refernece was to support the claim "Jane Saylor has described AuthorHouse as a vanity press", then it would be a primary source. But that's not what you're doing with the reference. Even if it was a primary source, secondary sources are prefered on Wikipedia. So in this case either we take the article as a secondary source, in which case it is unreliable, or we treat the article as a primary source, in which case it is trumped by other, more reliable, secondary sources. - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference supports the claim that AuthorHouse ITSELF is calling itself a vanity press by printing a book that contains information about AuthorHouse. This is, indeed, a primary source. Besides, why don't you just go look at AuthorHouse's own website to see what they charge for publication. It's obvious that they're a vanity press. I have no idea why you continue to deny it. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disputing the claim because it doesn't gel with the vast majority of reliable sources I've found, and, I should add, with sources you've found (such as Patricia Fry) which distinguish between vanity press and POD or self-publishing companies. The industry is changing, and it seems that a new model has emerged, which should be reflected in Wikipedia. At the very least, if reliable sources state that they are something other than a vanity press, then the terminology that they use should be reflected. I should add that the standard definition of vanity press is that you purchase a certain number of copies of the book, and are then required to distribute them. AuthorHouse charges you for their services, but does not require you to purchase any copies of the book - packages exist where you can do this, but it isn't a requirement. In relation to primary sources, AuthourHouse clearly states that they are hold authors responsible for the content of their books. Thus the claims of Jane Saylor are simply claims made by Jane Saylor - not claims made by AuthorHouse. And thus it is not a primary source as it is being employed. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, the definition of a vanity press is that writers pay for publication. That's it. PERIOD. That's why AuthorHouse is a vanity press. POD is just a technology--it has nothing to do with whether a press is a vanity operation or not. Publishing "models" are not changing--the only thing that's changed is that vanity presses such as AuthorHouse are employing new technologies. Big deal. It's still a vanity press BECAUSE THE WRITERS PAY FOR PUBLICATION. Again, I have to ask you why you continue to deny that fact. It's an incontrovertible fact, available on the company's own website. Qworty (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is because the authors aren't required to pay for publication - they're required to pay for editing, cover design, distribution, and ISBN, but not for the printing of the books. Vanity presses charge for printing of all copies up front, and don't typically provide other services. Traditional presses provide both sets of services, and charge for neither. That suggests three models. Anyway, as with Lulu, I'm not particularly arguing that the terminology "vanity press" is completely wrong, just that reliable sources contrast AuthorHouse and other similar companies with vanity press, and instead describe them as self-publishing companies or POD publishers. I don't understand why you're choosing to insist on the term vanity press in spite of evidence to the contrary provided by multiple editors, but I figure we've just hit an issue that you feel very strongly about. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Editing, cover design, distribution, and ISBN" are all part of PUBLICATION--why don't you get that? There is no publication without cover design. There is no publication without distribution--the two terms are virtually synonymous! There is no book publication without ISBN. All of the "services" that AuthorHouse charges for--which, btw, a writer could obtain much more cheaply by actually self-publishing--constitute part of publication. Whether you are aware of it or not, you are taking a very narrow AuthorHouse lie and trying to base an entire article on it. And yes, you're right, lying is an issue that I "feel very strongly about." Wikipedia must be accurate. Qworty (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll make much progress on our own here. At any rate, you're correct that this has moved away from my original intent of posting on your talk page, so any further discussion is better back on the article's page. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Gifts (folk and world music band)

I'm here to ask you if you wouldn't mind withdrawing your nomination of the AfD in this header. If you do, I can close it. You can reply here, but I'd rather you do it on my talk page, since it appears yours is rather large (mine archives). I'll be expecting your response. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your withdraw and respect your decision. Happy editing! :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for John Fauquier

I have revamped the Fauquier article. If you aren't busy, would you mind revisiting the debate in light of the article changes? Thank you. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dmitri Capyrin

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dmitri_Capyrin

Your opinion would be appreciated.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources vs. material being sourced

I'm not entirely clear on why you are both removing what may be an inappropriate source and also the material the source is being used to cite. Because the source may be inappropriate doesn't invalidate the information as well. If the material would still need a source, then tag it for source needed, don't just cut it out. That's really quite counter-productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I quite agree with your point of view on this. Qworty (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please notify authors of speedy deletion nominations

Hello. The general custom when nominating an article for speedy deletion is to notify the creator of the article. The speedy deletion template actually includes boilerplate text you can use to notify the article's creator, or packages such as Twinkle do that automatically for you. Not doing so is somewhat discourteous and can cause feelings of bad will as in the case of your tagging of From Buddha to Bono. That being said, your contributions are appreciated. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will do so in the future. Did I in fact tag From Buddha to Bono? I don't remember that one. And was there in fact a reaction to it? Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jahar Dasgupta

Then he shouldn't have been blocked for username reasons (not in the least since AfD decided to keep the article), but for COI/spam reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Corporate usernames are blocked as promotional if they've actually edited the article in question. Outside of that, they're often intended to be used as shared or role accounts, which is a big no-no. Yes, I'd take it to the COI noticeboard ... it's pretty clear-cut. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My Mother is a Tractor: Deletion

Hi Qworty, If you choose to delete, fine. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion. I'm fully aware that you can likely knock down each following point but at least wanted to have my say.

• I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking your link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
• It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
• Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
• It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
• This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
• As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
• Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. It's obvious you are not a fan of POD/'Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and that's how you probably came upon my book.

With you having already deleted all of the mentioned references without waiting for judgement here one must presume deletion a fait accompli. I have therefore saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Given this, there's no need to reply to any of the above - I'll just leave it up to you. Good evening and good luck. Nklar (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dare Wright

I have reverted your edit to Dare Wright, where you removed the reference to a new book in the tradition of Dare Wright. "The Lonely Doll Makes New Friends" has been published with the permission of The Estate of Dare Wright, and is as legitmate as any others in the series.Poodle Girl (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a reply to the smear you posted on User:Poodle Girl talk page regarding the Dare Wright entry you continue to vandalize. Certainly WP:CIVIL is a two-way street, and certainly the note you wrote on Poodle Girl's talk page violates it, as well as violating (or at least attempting to tamp down) the spirit of WP:Be Bold. Certainly the bulk of the argument made on that page is attack ad hominem and has little to do with the substance of the issue. Here is the substance: Of course vanity press books are by and large not notable. However, in this case, we're dealing with a bona fide notable subject whose last book was published posthumously by her estate on a vanity press. That is not only hugely interesting, it is also notable to anyone interested in said subject. It is notable on biographical grounds, and it is notable in the ways that all posthumous releases by an estate are notable in the way they bear upon the literary reputation of their author. Furthermore, the implication made by the phrase "vanity book's main supporter is an anonymous dial-up" is that there is a WP:COI violation, when, indeed, there is not, nor is there only a single user making the same sustained argument despite Qworty's repeated edit warring. Furthermore, Wikipedia allows users to post from their dial-ups for whatever reasons they choose, as I have this evening. You'll note, if you check my dial-up number (as I'm sure you will to further your ad hominem attacks), that I am posting from Hawaii, which is about as far from the action of this particular dispute as one can get. I've posted an abridged version of this response at Poodle Girl's talk page, so as to counter the ad hominem attack there. Please, practice what you preach regarding WP:CIVIL, and limit your argument to the subject at hand, and examine said subject at hand (notability) through the lens of common sense rather than by way of a vanity press litmus test, the reasons for which litmus test, anyway, don't apply in this case. 72.235.20.251 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, hell, for all that (and I hate to admit it), I checked into it further and you were right about the notability. That last book isn't written by Dare Wright, it's written by some people writing an imitation sequel. I'll revert and leave it alone. But I still register irritation at the ad hominem stuff.
• Don't know about ad hominem, but people trying to make a buck off a poor dead woman deserve not a lot of respect.

72.235.20.251 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Malin to Mizen

You voted for a delete here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malin to Mizen. However, evidence establishing the noteworthiness of the topic has since been given and you have not been heard from since. I'm requesting that you and the other early voters return to the discussion and reaffirm or refute your previous position. --MQDuck 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Amy Lane

No problem. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Links

Kashmir2 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Why are you going through Wikipedia deleting links to Suzanne Olsson book? For example on page of Roza Bal, you delete her name. Hassnain and Olsson just made a joint book together called 'Roza Bal The Tomb of Jesus' It will be on amazon after June 1st and will be added to many pages at Wikipedia. Please stop removing these valid references. Thank you.Kashmir2 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Her article was just nuked on AfD [25], that's why! Qworty (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Spring Awakening

Can you add any citations to articles discussing the score and stating that it contains alt-rock? It sounded like pretty classic rock and folk rock to me. Also, if you think a replacement actor is notable, and you can write a good article about them, write the article, and then add their name. See WP:NOTE. At the musicals project, the WP:CONSENSUS of editors believes that musicals articles are better when they do not contain lists of non-notable names. Most actors on Wikipedia who have articles have multiple professional credits before they warrant an article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Schoharie Valley

Lookie here: I think I know a tad more about the Valley than someone else. (unless you live here, then I apologize.) There must be a compromise here. Suggest one and I may follow.

And by the way, the AFD clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia stated that she didn't deserve a page to herself. However, mentioning one of the more important people in an internal article I don't think is a crime. To call it vandalism is not appropriate. This is why some people are mentioned but not given separate articles: examples: 1. mothers, fathers, siblings, and spouses of famous people mentioned in an internal article but not separately 2. smaller incidents within a larger framework, making sure the web of events is complete

You know there's a near-infinite amount of evidence to back this up. Probably an article you've read in the last hour meets this guideline. So please, at least hear me out. Sgt. bender (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NNC clearly states that Mrs. Dutton can be added back into the article. I'd like to hear feedback before I do so.Sgt. bender (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline you reference does not in fact mention Mrs. Dutton by name. What specific WP:RS do you propose to employ? And why on Earth is this so important to you? Qworty (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the guideline doesn't mention her by name. It's general and meant as a catch-all. Her book and mentions in local media and school publications are more than enough reliable sourcing to prove that she exists and is important to the community.

Second, of course it's important to me. She's a nice little 90-year old lady who survived a genocide after her parents were murdered. I think that a nod is appropriate due to her large standing in the county. I'm not looking to pick a fight. I'd just like the guideline to be followed.Sgt. bender (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Her book blatantly fails WP:SPS. School publications won't meet WP:RS. Being a nice old lady is not enough. Even being a genocide survivor is not enough to satisfy notability. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentions in the Cobleskill Times-Journal, the Schenectady Daily Gazette, and the Oneonta Daily Star should be more than enough for WP:RS. Again, for the sake of WP:NNC, it is necessary to prove that she is notable strictly to the article at hand, not Wikipedia as a whole. Sgt. bender (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination

When you nominate an article for deletion like the one for Robert F. Smallwood, you should let the article's creator know about your decision. Just a heads up. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lymbyc Systym

The Lymbyc Systym wiki page was edited to remove the elements that seemed promotional. It was made more concise, and only includes information that is documented by credible 3rd party music news sources (All Music Guide, Pitchfork, CMJ, etc). Also, a list of sources was added.

I feel at this point, since Lymbyc Systym have just as much credibilty as many bands already listed in the Wiki database, the page deserves recognition as a valid Wikipedia article.

Fost01 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

conflict of interest

Hi Qworthy, I saw you comment to User Rexbacchus on the Robert Smallwood affair. May I inquire how do you judge if there is a conflict of interest? Would it be conflict of interest if the person who created the article then votes to save it in a AfD discussion like Rexbacchus did. I would think not if they can add some relevant information that is not spammy/pushy. Where do you draw the line? (Um...I think I see your point now; User Rexbacchus does seem to be editwarring a bit on the Afd vote. There was a Washington Post reference to Smallwood but it treats him in a secondary manner)

BTW, I came across this AfD on PrivacyView:[26] Very few people have bothered to vote on it. I made a weak keep vote but am really troubled by the fact its author appears to have some kind of connection to this software company. This seems to be the nightmare scenario: what does one do when the company (PrivacyView) appears (at first glance) to be a legitimate entity with numerous references to its products...and yet the person who created the article may have ties to it. I don't know how you would vote in this case. The actions of its creator really smells but the organization is legitimate. Any advice on this moral dilemma. Thank You, Artene50 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate you did not bother to reply to my question on PrivacyView where the discussion is still ongoing. Was I wrong in asking you an honest question on this problem? On the Robert Smallwood affair, it does look that all of Rexbacchus' edits is on this person as this suggests [27] BUT on the other hand, he may be a new editor who is a fan of Smallwood's work. (assuming this is not a sockpuppet account) Whatever your view of Rexbacchus, you had a duty to inform him that you were proposing to delete his article. Not doing so constitutes bad faith on your part, don't you know this? Artene50 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My question is what was personal opinion of the current PrivacyView deletion vote here: [28] I thought you may know more about the issue and I wondered if there were serious ethical problems involved on this artcle and its creator. BTW, on the Robert Smallwood issue, I changed my vote from delete to Weak keep. I gave clear concise reasons why--you may not like them. I am going to bed now as its late into the night. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm signing off now from Wikipedia but after I saw Bilby respond rather promptly to my comments on Robert F. Smallwood, I've decided to change my vote a final last time to No Opinion from weak keep. You really should tell people whose articles you propose to delete about your nomination. Some people may not bother to vote to keep/delete their article but Rexbacchus clearly has strong issues here. Thank You, Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#question regarding BLP application to discussions as I believe it involves you as an unnamed party. Please forgive my presumption. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you may want to chime in at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Unrealiable prodders". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pariah Burke

I just thought I'd let you know I personally believe that you may have been just a little bit harsh on PB in the AfD. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Literary magazine

I note that there is an edit war going on about whether or not to include Brick Magazine. A quick perusal of their website http://www.brickmag.com/ and other reliable sources, shows that one of their editors is Michael Ondaatje, author of The English Patient, that their contributors include National Book Award winner Russell Banks, Jim Harrison (Legends of the Fall), Joyce Carol Oates (perennial Nobel candidate), Margaret Atwood (Canada's leading novelist), Annie Proulx (Brokeback Mountain), etc, and that they are distributed to major bookstores throughout the United States and Canada. These are among our most major writers, and they're contributing to a journal with a greater shelf footprint than most of the ones listed on the literary magazine page. I'm not sure how that fails any test of notability. I note that you're often a reasonable voice in regard to such matters. Could you step in here?64.254.129.118 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

W. L. Shurtleff

I expanded W. L. Shurtleff. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. L. Shurtleff. -- Eastmain (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Hassan

Please discuss your issues with the article, rather than making wholesale deletions without discussion on the talk page. They appear to be against consensus. Perhaps, if you explain yourself, you may convince other editors as to your point of view. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Wikipedia laws demand us to assume good faith. Please cease and desist from your baltant allegations [29] against the editors and the Nidal Malik Hasan's article.--Gilisa (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Defamation on Nidal Malik Hasan talk page

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

For writing this: "(from abover) Congratulations to all of you right-wing mind-readers manipulating and specially-arranging RS to build up your little theory that Hasan was a cool-minded Islamic terrorist, rather than a frazzled man who lost it and went berserk." on Nidal Malik Hasan talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So this means I can call upon you the next time I'm defamed on Wikipedia? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with pleasure-and it's entirely not your POV that lead me to put this warnings, but you accusations and that I thought you gone too far when you gave us titles.--Gilisa (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting that some would consider being called conservative highly inflammatory. Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Come one, you used more explicit titles. It's not a big issue, just asking you to avoid it next time. Thanks,--Gilisa (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Hasan "Do the Right Thing?

For the record, just what IS your POV so we don't end up guessing incorrectly. I would conjecture based on your efforts to remove any information that would lead one to conclude that Hasan was guilty of either murder or terrorism that you don't believe, or al Queda are guilty of either crime? Bachcell (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my POV, my friend. The objective fact is that nobody yet knows what motivated Hasan. Therefore, any attempt to guess that is nothing more than POV-pushing. There are right-wing editors who want to blame a certain mosque, or al-Qaeda, or certain clerics for the rampage. But we have no evidence of any of this. All you have is irresponsible guessing and speculation. Just because a guy attended a mosque doesn't prove a damn thing--thousands of people have attended a mosque or listened to a certain cleric, but only ONE of them started blowing soldiers away. So the odds don't look good at all for your particular interpretation. Also, if you're going to theorize and pretend you can read Hasan's mind, then you must cover ALL of the possible motives, not just the right-wing fantasy that he was taking orders from a cave in Afghanistan. And these other possibilities include the fact that Bush's unjust war drove this psychiatrist nuts, especially as he had to listen for years to horror stories of returning soldiers, and so he didn't want to deploy. That is much more likely than his taking orders from bin Laden. Finally, this "politically correctness" argument in terms of the Army is entirely bogus. Hasan was called a "camel jockey" and other names by his Army buddies, was constantly harassed, and even had his car vandalized. How in the world is that political correctness??? The Army is ALREADY hostile to its Muslim members, and it could use a lot more "political correctness." Qworty (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to read Hasan's mind. We know what flavor of Islam he believes in (jihadism) We know who his spiritual mentor is (Awlawki) It's all over his infamous Powerpoint. We can confirm that Hasan's disciple, Duane Reasoner ALSO believes killing US soldiers is justifiable or at least not lamentable. We know that Awlawki has called on good muslims to kill US Soldiers. Doesn't this establish a likely motive? If you say you don't see that, I can only conclude that you probably that you've chosen not to believe in it, and simply act to defend Hasan because you are symphathetic to Awlawki's belief that Hasan did the right thing. Please correct me so that I don't have an incorrect impression of your motivations. If this was the spiritual guidance given to Hasan, and echoed by Reasoner who may have gotten it from Hasan: "Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims" how does this not establish a likely motive, and how can anyone say we know nothing of a possible motive? If we have numerous sources linking AW to Al Qeda by name, how does this not establish a link to an operative of Al Qeda? You still haven't answered the question I am wondering, do you agree that Hasan "did the right thing", since you clearly agree with Awlawki and Hasan that the US is doing bad, unjustifiable things to Muslims, and you seem to go along with Hasan's family that his was just a guy with no ties to terrorism, who never said anything against the US, who was picked on for being a muslim. Bachcell (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I discussion involving your edits

Hello, Qworty. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• What would have been rather more helpful is to point out to you that you could have refactored the nomination in straight factual terms. The fact that this gentleman is a self-published author and his books are published by a vanity press is fair comment, stating it in the robust terms you did is not acceptable. We should be polite but firm. I suspect you can understand that and won't make the same mistake again. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Noteable Article?

Hi. My name is Sean Wolfington and you recently decided to delete the article written about me and it was then deleted. Over a year ago i recieved a message that someone wanted to delete the article but other people decided to keep the article after making edits and adding references. Since i am not very familiar with Wikipedia I wanted to find out why the article was not noteworthy. In addition to not being noteworthy some people said it was self-promoting. This is not true. I discovered this wikipedia page when i googled my name for something else. A freind showed me how i could update it and i updated it so there was more accurate information and then i was told i should not do that. Since that time i never updated it again.

Since i don't know alot about Wikipedia i asked a freind and they suggested i provide information to the people on the business page of Wikipedia to get their oppinion of wheter the article is noteworthy and i wanted to give you additional information that was not on the article you deleted to see if that may change whether the article is noteworthy.

Here is a summary of my background so you can evaluate whether it is noteworthy. All of this information is available through major news outlets and some of it was referenced in the article that was deleted, which i thought was the criteria for determining if something was noteworthy... but again i don't know alot about how this site works. Below is my background information, please tell me if any of this is noteworthy. Some of the information was not in the original article and the additional information may effect whether the article is noteworthy.

Here is my background: I am an Entreprenuer and a film maker. I founded and sold 2 technology companies by the age of 34. The first company, HAC Group which operated as Cyber Car and Automark, sold for $200 million (article with info can be viewed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/18/business/company-news-reynolds-reynolds-to-buy-hac-group-for-200-million.html) and the second for $125 million dollars of enterprise value (BZ Results article- http://www.dealerrefresh.com/adp-buys-bz-results/ - there are many articles about these companies but these are links i just found). My company was recognized as the "Innovative company of the year" from Auto Success Magazine along with SAP (http://www.autosuccessonline.com/leadership.aspx) and I was a finalist for the Ernst & Young "Entreprenuer of the Year" when i was 34 years old and a few months ago was recognized by Haute Living Magazine as one of the top 100 most influential leaders in the Haute 100 (view at:http://www.hauteliving.com/?s=sean+wolfington). After selling the second company, I started a film production company where i financed, produced and distributed the first film myself (Bella)and it was the #1 top grossing film in its category. (here is an article i wrote for the Huffington Post about it- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wolfington/what-i-learned-about-maki_b_102704.html and LA Times wrote an article about it - articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/04/entertainment/et-bella4) It also was the #1 rated movie on Yahoo, NY Times, Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes while in theaters and it is currently one of the top 50 Rated Films of All Time on Yahoo and it was the #1 Rated movie of 2007 by the users of the largest film review site in the world, RottenTomatoes.com. After that i produced 2 other films including a new motion picture called Mighty Macks (you can view at IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034324/ and you can view my film history at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2055676/). In addition to the film production company i currently own 6 companies in the technology, real estate and entertainment industries.

I can provide more information but this is a summary of my background. Please let me know if you believe this is noteworthy enough. Thank you.Seanwolfington (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qworty. You have new messages at WikiDao's talk page.
Message added 07:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janette Turner Hospital. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Roland, that's what I tried to get you to do--discuss changes on the talk page before any were made, but you refused to do that. Why are you counseling me to do something that you yourself refused to do? Qworty (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

As you may know, I take a keen interest in the enforcement of BLP policies at Wikipedia. In that vein, I can tell you that you are way off track in your edits to Janette Turner Hospital. However, something you wrote attracted my attention:

MEANWHILE, I can point you toward articles where ONE disgruntled person posted ONE shitty thing on a blog about 1% as prominent as Gawker, and that little piece of verbal caca is then defended as a reason to smear somebody for life on Wikipedia--to HELL with BLP in those cases, right?

I wonder if you could point me to examples of that, so that I can work to clean those up and educate anyone involved that we don't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You asked elsewhere if you can communicate with me privately, and of course the answer is yes. You can email me via Wikipedia, or my email address is jwales@wikia.com.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Meg_Whitman. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Qworty, your hostile behavior at Talk:Meg Whitman is completely unacceptable. You have been warned many times in the past about civility violations and so I know you know better. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility in AfD discussions

Qworty - I would suggest that a number of your comments in AfDs are inappropriate and potentially uncivil. Whilst in some cases your arguments are well-founded, the way they are expressed is not in accordance with principles of civility and avoiding personal attacks. This and this and this sort of thing are not necessary. Hope you understand, and can continue to contribute to the AfD discussions in a slightly more moderate way. Thanks! --Korruski^Talk 17:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy

Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is up for deletion. So is Malia Obama. Malia Obama was speedily deleted before so there is a case for speedy deletion of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy. How about John Ford, who didn't do much.

If you can convince me to keep all of them, I will respect that. However, pick and choosing suggests bias. Forgotpasswordsht (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK

Qworty, you may remember this organisation as you contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom). It's reappeared under a new name and I've renominated it, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK. I attempted to get a "speedy delete" but this was rejected as it had been expanded. I wonder if you now think it meets notability. Regards JRPG (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Warren

Why did you remove all the self-published work by Barbara Warren? Don't you think that might be useful information for readers who want to learn more about her? I have started a section on the talk page. Jokestress (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

M/A-COM

I have declined you speedy deletion of M/A-COM as a repost of an article previously deleted via a deletion discussion, as I cannot find any such deletion discussion. It certainly has not been deleted under the title M/A-COM, nor has there ever been a WP:Articles for deletion/M/A-COM. If there was one under a different title then I suggest retagging the article, and giving a link to the discussion, like this: {{db-g4|WP:Articles for deletion/M-A-COM}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Robert Pope

Hello, Qworty...actually, I just did some maintenance on that article, I don't know very much about the subject. I've got no time now to search for sources, since I'm on vacation, I just use the computer occasionally to check the emails and etc...Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 22:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection

[30]. Can pick up others as they appear. Have I missed any? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Simmons page

Hello. I appreciate the comments and adjustments you have made on Laurie Simmons page. I was unaware that I was deleting the COI. I would not have done that intentionally. I am new to wikipedia and trying to figure out how to get her page in top shape. I work in her studio so it is my responsibility to put this together. Again, thanks for your help. Lsimmonsstudio (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)lsimmonsstudio

Columbia Gorge casino

Please stop removing links to Columbia Gorge casino. Those are valid links for a notable, well reported subject. If, somehow, your AfD for the article succeeds, then it would be time to delete the links to it. —EncMstr (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Alex Marin y Kall

Thank you for your advice. I really wasn't aware of the WP:AUTO policy. I just want to make clear that I didn't "sneakily" removed the prod and I only kept trying to find out why my articles were being removed and it wasn't very clear at the beginning because there were reference issues, language issues and finally you came up with the AUTOBIOGRAPHY issue. There was NO intention of cheating or breaking the rules, this has all been a consequence of my learning process. Alexmyk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Calm, caaaallm!

Qworty, take User:Rbernstein off your watchlist and forget about him. Leave him to yell all he wants in his echo chamber. You have better things to do. EEng (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Qworty, again... please cool it with Rb. Let C.Fred handle it. Probably what will happen is that Rb will refuse to do anything until everyone else is punished for what he insists is the abuse he's suffered, or he won't be able to show that he understands why he was blocked. Or if he manages to get unblocked, he won't abide by the topic ban. Or maybe, just maybe he'll start editing other stuff and actually become a useful contributor. Wait and see. I understand how you feel but it's best to just let some things play out. Why don't you sign my little statement at the bottom of Rb's talk page? That might help us stop wasting more time with Rb. EEng (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The guy is a menace to fellow editors as well as to the project as a whole. Whether his block is lifted, or if he just starts creating socks, there is nothing in his history to suggest that he has learned anything or is going to change. He is putting together an enemies list, and you are prominent upon it. He's going to come after you. Other editors will be there to defend you, of course, but the guy is a bad egg, and there is no reason to give him any leeway whatsoever. If he's given any further free reign, the results are going to be disastrous, and more and more editors will be calling for a lifetime block on the guy. Qworty (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He's already said he won't ask for an unblock until everyone's been beaten senseless for what they've done to him, so he's stuck right there. Please -- I'll be embarrassed if no one else signs my thing on his page, so please sign it as a favor to me, won't you? And then go back to your other, more important work. You have a lot of good energy but too much is wasted trying to convicne people who can't hear you anyway. EEng (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to sign it as a personal favor, because you are a good editor. But this is a very bad situation. And I reserve the right to take the guy to AN/I and to do everything in my power to have him banned for life, the minute he starts acting out on his ego-mad, sick, sadistic need to make other human beings suffer. Qworty (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ebony March

I would remind you that WP:BLP applies everywhere. Righteous indignation is not a reason for engaging in flames, we can remove autobiographies from Wikipedia while showing a little more class than this, I think. Not that I think you are wrong in your analysis of who is who, but this is just a friendly note to let you know that some of us are now having to pick up some unwanted fallout from your rhetorical exuberance. I am pretty sure you would not want that to happen again. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Qworty, this is your friend EEng again. I gotta say that, thought I don't evne know what they're talking about, I'm not surprised. I mean, you did call Rb. "sadistic" -- isn't that a bit over-the-top? You'll be more effective if you cool it. When you keep cool, other editors are more likely to join in and, if you're in the right (which you usually are) they're do most of the work for you. Keep after the bastards, but do it more subly! EEng (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It has to do with this sock investigation I initiated: [31]. Pretty cut-and-dry stuff, actually, leading to no fewer than FOUR account blocks, but the WP:AUTO person took great umbrage that her article was even up for AfD. Typical, as you know. Qworty (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Inspector Morimoto

Hello Qworty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Inspector Morimoto, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not rely on a page that does not exist. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Okay. Looks like I'll have to take this non-notable fictional character from a non-notable book written by a non-notable AfD-deleted author to an additional AfD. Qworty (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, I see you've gone ahead and prodded it. Okay, I just seconded your prod. It makes no sense to delete an author through AfD, and then still have a page about a fictional character from a non-notable book by that deleted author. Qworty (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Gorge casino AfD

Hi Qworty-- Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Gorge casino, you may want to see this discussion on the article's talk page. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

D'Jais

Can you give your opinion at [32]? (But gently, please.) Thanks. EEng (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Done [33] Qworty (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits at D'Jais

Hi Qworty. Just to let you know, your edits at D'Jais have broken references that relied on named refs that you have removed. If you're making edits like that, you really need to either remove the other references as well, or else transfer the full citation information to them, otherwise you get a lot of big red broken link notices at the bottom of the page. I'll happily fix it myself, but I spotted it just as I was about to go to bed, so it'll have to wait 'til tomorrow. If you get to it before then, maybe you can do it?

Thanks.--Korruski^Talk 00:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sure, no problem. Thanks for the heads-up! Qworty (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My very own attack page?

Really? Did you save a copy for me? Where was it? How cute! EEng (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodfield School

Hi Qworty. I can't decline your AfD because AfDs cannot generally be stopped until they have run their full 7 days. If you are going to get involved in Recent Changes Patrol or New Pages Patrol, I strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with our polices at WP:COI, our guidelines for schools at WP:WPSCH/AG, and the English government schools inspectorate. I have reverted your edits. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to comment on the article's AfD page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

DELETION OF ARTICLE- "PUSA CALL"

V2VG2G (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) V2VG2G (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Hi Qworty,

This message is in referance to the article "Pusa Call", which has been deleted just in the recent times. Though, I am happy that you all experianced people have noticed this article. But, it seems, you have ignored the content which was written in it.

I understand, that the particular article might be lacking in satisfying referances. But, if you have noticed in the article itself, it clearly mentions that this subject is a ban in the institute, hence it is impossible to get it listed in the institute's official website. But otherwise, I have tried to incorporate the remix version(A youtube video) and a modified version of the same.

Apart from that, if you look at the history of people who have watched this article in such a small span of its existence, can be an indirect referance indicating its popularity. Unlike the Hoax/Fake articles.

As I am a new wikipedian, I would like to mention that I am still in the process of learning the wikipedia and working for the same. It is my humble request to you all, to please reconsider its formation at wikipedia again. And believe me, it is not a hoax article at all. I will try my level best to incorporate more and more relevant referances and links to this particular article in the near future.

thanking you. V2VG2G

User:Qworty did not delete this article. It was deleted by an administrator after it had been debated by the community for seven days. You were advised of this on your talk page on 31 January 2011 and you chose not to reply or defend the article on the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pusa Call. More advice is again on your talk page. Kudpung (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits made on Laurie Simmons wiki page

Hi Qworty,

I am writing to explain my edits on Laurie Simmons' wikipedia page. I have been trying to improve the article and make it reflect wikipedia standards. I am a relatively new user and I realize that I have made many mistakes along the way, which I am attempting to redeem. I have been doing a lot of reading about wikifying and COI, so I hope you will help me as I try to make this page perfect. While I do recognize that sarahsalon94 and I have potential for being COI, we are simply trying to make Laurie's page accurate and available to the public for their education.

Thank you,

Rbaxte (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Rbaxte

Re: New Millennium Writings

Re your message: I deleted New Millennium Writings because it a broken redirect to New millennium writings, which was deleted through a proposed deletion. I was just doing broken redirect clean up and was not looking at the deletion of the parent article. You will need to talk to ErikHaugen to discuss the deletion of New millennium writings. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sahtyre

In almost every instance your editing of articles featuring the rapper Sahtye were unconstructive, borderline vandalism. I believe you meant to dewikify the artist but you instead removed him from the group roster, went on to remove him from songs he is confirmed as being on and events he is referenced for participating in, resulting in the articles being misinforming or omiting information entirely. As a music fan I was devestated to think he had left the group only to see on youtube then on their site that it was not the case. Please be more careful of your edits in the future as I can see your page has a vast number of complaints already.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.145.72 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sahtyre article was deleted here for lack of notability: [34]. It is customary to delete red links per WP:RED. You should familiarize yourself with WP policies before you start throwing a lot of baseless accusations around. Qworty (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

rv in edit summaries

"rv" in edit summaries is short for reverting which means to undo one or more specific edits, usually the most recent. You appear to be using rv when you remove things in a non-reverting way. This can cause confusion for people who read your edit summaries and cannot see which edit you supposedly reverted. See also Wikipedia:Edit summary legend#Removal of text and Wikipedia:Edit summary legend#Revert to a previous edit for the difference. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this too. You might try "rm" for "remove" instead. Valfontis (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Simmons page

Hi Qworty.

I have posted a new section on the talk page of the Laurie Simmons article. You recently made some edits and reinstated tags that were previously removed by other editors. I appreciate you making the article better and I would like to discuss what more the article needs. I would also like know your reasoning behind reinstating each tag. I hope you will continue to help me edit this article. Thank you.

````Rbaxte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaxte (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Miles (novelist) page

Hi Qworty. I am hoping you can help me with an article I helped put together about an author who spoke to our local library group. I am new to this, but eager to contribute more articles and edits. Can you help me to understand what was wrong about the sections of the article you cut? I tried to link the article to other articles as well, so it wouldn't be "orphaned," but I noticed you cut all of those too. Please let me know where I went wrong! Now that I'm (maybe) getting the hang of this, I'm hoping to contribute more.

Bugler31 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was an extremely harsh reply you gave me. I'm not a spammer, just a newcomer. To answer your allegations, I did not add links to even a single article. It should be easy to see that all I did was to link pre-existing references to my article subject back to the article by inserting brackets. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that was Wikipedia practice to avoid "orphaned" links. Hudley is a friend. We're trying to learn this together. I would definitely prefer some more constructive criticism as to how to bring my contributions up to Wikipedia standards, as I have been working on additional articles.

Bugler31 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Autobiography, COI or not, the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (NYTRoB, LATimes, USAToday are all nationwide RS). The book is actually a better subject, but there's an actual bio here so I'll make something presentable from the sources. You may pursue Bugler31 or Hudley and if those users are doing something wrong like sockpuppetry, that may color my willingness, but I'm a longtime editor so I'll review the stuff myself. I may choose to use some text previously introduced by User:Hudley as long as I can find sources for it. And a personal website for an author is not exactly out-of-bounds. For the record, I'm also a Warwick, NY resident (and that's how I stumbled onto this, watching the Warwick page), but didn't attend a recent local authors event at the Wisner Library. Thanks for the vandal-fighting. BusterD (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about sockpuppetry. Two new users, one sleeper, each with just a few (overlapping) edits. Smells fishy to me. Lotta coincidences. Your opinion? BusterD (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that both users are Miles himself. I do think he deserves an article, but I removed many of the promotional links that the two accounts littered across Wikipedia. Will keep an eye on them. Qworty (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To correct you slightly, I think all three users are Jon Miles, and I've thrown down a challenge here. Please keep your eyes on the space. Thanks again for your original action. I suspect you're correct. Too bad. BusterD (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have suspicions about User:Adp78 as well. Just my opinion, but the writing looks raw and similar. Awful lotta NYT writers getting their own pages this week. BusterD (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Adp78 and Bugler31 have both made edits to Warwick, New York. Qworty (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm expanding my watch to Adp78. User's sole contribution has been to create, link and expand Bill Pennington. Coincidentally, local author supporter Bugler31 has also exited the page. In this case, lots of info has been introduced without a plausible source. His children's names don't appear in any of the refs, neither do I see them mentioned in his NYT bio or on book sleeves available for reading at Amazon. Perhaps he blogs about them. Page creator seems to know about a book based on his blog/column, I deleted this per not crystal ball. Sound familiar? Because we're talking about established writers using socking to self-promote we may want to escalate this discussion at some point. Let's watch what happens for a while. Too bad we can't just get them to do something useful, like asking User:Hudley to make improvements in the Larry Brown (author) page, but that wouldn't be assuming good faith, would it? BusterD (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm a little apprehensive about biting newbies who write as well as these do. Some experience is needed. This is one such. BusterD (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if I don't log in, thought 68.197.48.189, they won't figure out who's responsible... BusterD (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You know we're starting to get a real signpost article here. We got socks, we got BLPs, we got children's first and middle names, and everything surrounds contributors to America's finest newspaper. Starting to get exciting. If this continues, I'll put together a real SPI report. Might end up as a story in the... Times! BusterD (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No kidding, LOL. And with an IP address that's been stable since March, 2008! Ah, there's nothing like small-town life. Qworty (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Careful about your use of gender pronouns. The subject has a son and two daughters, if the pagecreator wrote accurately. It may be friends or cousins. But certainly a close acquaintance, regardless of relation. BTW, I put 2 + 2 together and got 3. I see three, maybe four autobiographies or COIs between 5 user accounts and 4 ips. Not as much as I expected. Been going on since January. Not done reading. See this subpage. BusterD (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Maeve Gilmore

WP:CRYSTAL is an extension of Wikipedia:No original research. If information about future events is directly provided by reliable sources, we can use it. For example, Heat death of the universe is a highly speculative article about events that may or may not happen many trillions of years from now. Nonetheless, since WP:RS make the speculation, the article topic does not run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Chester Markel (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about use of WP:NOTINHERITED

I'm concerned that you have removed material from a number of articles giving WP:NOTINHERITED as the reason in the edit summary. That link is to a discussion about notability and its application in deletion discussions. "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." I have not looked at all the cases but it seems that they mainly concern articles on members of the Darwin–Wedgwood family and information about the individuals links to that family -- furthermore, some of the material removed is clearly specifically sourced. Please would you not continue to remove this material until there is a clear reason to do so? The link you quote does not constitute such a reason. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not harrass other users

I have redacted your message here as harrassment. Please do not repeat this, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regards,  Sandstein  20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about use of WP:RED

I'm concerned that you have removed content from Zoological Society of London with an edit summary per WP:RED. That guideline is clearly about whether or not the wording should have a link, or whether the linking square brackets should be removed -- it is not about removing the substantiative text. I have reverted the removal, but removed the linking brackets. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a fair solution to the issue. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern about use of WP:N

I'm concerned about your removal of information from Nigel Weiss giving per WP:N as edit summary. As I pointed out above, notability is about articles, not content. The list of doctoral students in an infobox is a well-established convention and you need to obtain a clear consensus to remove information like that. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't aware of that convention. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Gold's

Hello. I apologize for making it seem like my sole purpose was promoting Gold Pure Food Products. I was not familiar with the Wikipedia rules, and am stubborn for continuing editing without being familiar. My purpose was to write an article containing facts. Nothing that I have said in that article was meant to promote Gold's under any false pretenses. In fact, not to promote Gold's at all! I wanted to write a factual, interesting article, and I wanted to continue editing as more information about the company was released, therefore, keeping the article in a current state. As for writing on Jesse Jackson's page, I have no recollection of ever writing those horrible things. I am not the only person on this IP address, and another person, probably someone of a younger age wrote those things. I apologize for that as well. I promise to refrain from posting anything else on this wikipedia article, or anything pertaining to Gold's onthe wikipeida site. This all was a big misunderstanding, and I'm sorry.

Thank you. Gtarmanperson (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI.... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gtarmanperson Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused though. I have not written anything on this page for some time, you have edited it to be neutral, yet it still says the article needs to still be neutralized. Gtarmanperson (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I know it might be too much to ask for, is it possible that we both can sort of work on the Gold's wikipedia page, this way, I can learn first hand how to write un-objectivley, and I can better understand the policies of Wikipedia. I know you probably don't have time to do this, but it would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Again, I'm sorry about what happened before. Gtarmanperson (talk) 15:58, 26 Jul 2011 (UTC)

A simple yes or no will do. Gtarmanperson (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Darwin (the living one)

Greetings! Hey, I just wanted to apologize for my somewhat snarky "bold and CAPS" comment in the AfD. That was a bit out of line. I was just re-reading some of my posts to the discussion -- which has gotten rather lengthy, something for which I am largely to blame -- and I grimaced when I read that bit. Completely respect your opinions and your right to emphasize the salient elements of them. :) Best, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! No problem at all. And no need to apologize for adding to the length of the discussion. Qworty (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Simmons

Hey Qworty, I've been working with User talk:Rbaxte to improve this article. She says their company previously had an uninformed intern working on it User talk:Lsimmonsstudio, but she understands policy better now and wants to work on its sourcing and phrasing. She was concerned you would revert her changes, which she described to me as adding citations and removing non-neutral descriptions. As a COI editor, she has a high bar to meet, but she sounds like she wants to give it a shot. Please let me know if there's anything I'm not aware of, and give her proposed/edited changes a look before reverting. Cheers, Ocaasi <sup>t | c</sup> 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Khalil Ahmad Khan

The article Khalil Ahmad Khan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject is not adequately notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia. After almost a month no reliable secondary source has been cited for this article. (It might be reasonable to provide information about K.A. Khan in the article Ju-Jitsu International Federation)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolphin (t) 08:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Qworty. You have new messages at Dolphin51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Notification

This a courtesy notice that editing that you have been involved in is being discussed at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The specific thread in question is CVSNT, Apache_Subversion Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

David Scott Milton Wikipedia Entry

Dear Qworty: I just visited my Wikipedia page (David Scott Milton), which has been in existence for I don't know how long, a couple of years I suspect. (Just checked. It's four years) I found that the page has been essentially deleted. It now says this: "This article is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." In looking at the history of what was left of the article I found your edit of the article. I'm not sure if you designated the article as autobiography or not-- I am essentially illiterate in these computer matters. Perhaps you can help me. The article is certainly not an autobiography. I have no idea how one even enters a Wikipedia article or writes a Wikipedia article. It says that the article has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Again, I have never edited anything concerning me & have no idea how one even does that. As far as an "institution related to the subject"... again, I am not a member of any institution that would have a reason for writing about me. I've always assumed that I was in Wikipedia because of my accomplishments as a writer and actor, six novels, play on Broadway, awards, etc. It's embarassing to think that people are looking me up on Wikipedia and being told that I have written my own entry! Who on earth came to this conclusion? How can I demonstrate that this is not so? I don't want to appear paranoid but it seems as though someone with an axe to grind with me has purposely set about to embarrass me. I hope I'm not jumping to loopy conclusions, but this is all very unsettling. Can you tell me how I can resolve this? Again, I am virtually illiterate when it comes to technology and computers. Please explain to me in the clearest, simplest language what I must do and how this came about. Were you the editor who designated my article as "autobiography" or was it someone else? Who should I contact? What should I do? Sincerely, David Scott Milton 75.105.58.150 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to get into an extensive dispute with you, but the entry included tons of unreferenced material that only you yourself could have known or possibly cared about, including items such as "Milton lives on the 230 acre Hawk Mountain Ranch in the Southern Sierra Mountains of California. At present he is at work on a new novel, Iron City, and a film version of his last novel, The Fat Lady Sings." But whether you did or didn't post that is now moot, since by expressing such a strong interest in making changes to your own article, you have already violated the spirit of WP:AUTO. Other editors are not going to take kindly to you. So my advice to you is to stop talking on Wikipedia about your article in any way, not to edit your article, and to go away. Qworty (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how that information got into my Wikipedia page. I can understand why you feel that I had had a hand in its inclusion. I can only say with the utmost honesty that it had nothing to do with me. I have never, never done anything to add, amend, even bother myself at all with the entry. It's possible that someone picked up the material from an interview I had given or from e-mails to people. I do not know. You tell me that in making changes to my own article I violated the spirit of Wikipedia, that editors are not going to take kindly to me. Again, I never, never, never have had anything to do with my entry. Nothing. I can't help it if the editors are not going to take kindly to me. The truth is again I have never had anything to do with my entry. This is unbelievably frustrating and demeaning. You can be as harsh and condemning as you will. I won't take it because it isn't true. I'm asking here for simple justice. I'm imploring you and any others involved with this to believe me. I'm sure there are frauds that degrade Wikipedia. I am not one of them. I am stunned, saddened, troubled by all of this.75.105.58.150 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Qworty, this really seems like an unreasonable response. With the benefit of a few weeks of hindsight, would you agree? Note that the article subject is still rather upset, and has complained here. I thought you should know in case you want to say something to him. I'm already planning to give him some better advice in a while, so you don't need to go into much detail about what his options are if you choose to reply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Seay (musician)

Hello Qworty. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Seay (musician), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Stalk</sub> 18:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not well versed in this as you are.

How can I discuss the deletion of this page.

While I understand your ability to delete this I am concerned as I can provide and direct you to at least a dozen artists who are Seay's peers that have very similar articles here. None of them are being targeted for deletion. In fact, any of these artists will vouch for a Seay's career in this genre over a 10 year span I am happy to have Sirius XM music directors verify this is a bone fide music artist with global airplay and sales. I can also have several magazines and music reviewers do the same. Also distributed national by a major brick and mortar distributor etc etc. Please help me understand the process and provide responses to any of your concerns.

Respectfully submitted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seay_(musician)

similar pages about her peers not targeted for deletion. Help me understand your reasoning and how to correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aomusic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Arkenstone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Oster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_(band) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Stockley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidente123 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Vidente123 (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Earthstar COI Tag

You have tagged the article on Earthstar (band) with a COI notice. I wrote that article and all other edits since have been minor. I have no connection to the band whatsoever so the COI tag is entirely inappropriate. If you feel something in the article needs "cleaning up" then let me know what. That was about the first thing I did on WikiPedia and I wouldn't be surprised if it needs a bit of work. However, I would like to remove the COI tag first. Caitlynmaire (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The tag in question has been removed, which is good. The edits in question were minor and did not change the tone or significantly change the content of the article. Some was simple grammar. One name was added to the member list in the info box. It's unfortunate, perhaps, that Dennis Rea edited the page but there is nothing promotional and nothing other than NPOV in the article at this point. If there is something in the article that you feel is insufficiently referenced or which still, in your view, violates WikiPedia policy, please let me know and I will make the necessary changes. Caitlynmaire (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Panera Bread

I rolled back your change, then removed most of the same fluff you had. Take a look. dm (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer

Hi,

would you agree to remove the {{COI}} from the article Walter De Brouwer? The last activity there seems 6 months ago and User:Jokestress has cleaned it up thoroughly, I see no ongoing issues with the article.

kindest regards, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Qworty (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael McGinn

Hello,

You've previously participated in discussions about the article on Michael McGinn, the mayor of Seattle. I've written a critique of the article on its talk page, and have also raised my concerns at WP:BLPN. Your input would be welcomed. Thank you. Cullen<sup>328</sup> Let's discuss it 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Emanuel Xavier

Your edits to Emanuel Xavier] seemed to be exceptionally extensive. As your first edit was justified by virtue of a dead link no longer supporting the assertions deleted, I thought I might check to see if the citation could be repaired. Turns out, it could. As such I've reverted your edits to that point in time and corrected that citation. It strikes me that that particular citation might be better directed at the magazine, rather than a website reproducing its contents.

You've subsequently removed any link to this article citing nn, presumably Not Notable. If you have notability concerns over Xavier, the accepted process is to {{Prod}} the article or take it to AFD; don't go around removing links. If a lack notability is determined, and the article is deleted, then you can go around cleaning up the encyclopedia; not before. I'd appreciate it if you reverted your edits of this character before raising a prod or afd. Josh Parris 07:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this highly problematic article. I've replied more extensively below. Qworty (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Emanuel Xavier

Hello, Qworty. I'm curious about your edits relating to this poet. I see you stubbed down his article, which had borne multiple tags for some while. Fair enough—there was a lot of unsourced, unencyclopedic prose in there—but I wonder if the baby may have been drained out along with the bathwater. In addition to the dreck, you removed some sourced content that only needed a bit of work, as well as infobox, image, external links including the subject's own site, reference section, and a slew of category links (too many, no doubt, but all easily verifiable). You even removed Category:Living people, which seems a bit over the top, and you left the article ripe for CSD since there's no longer even an assertion of notability.

I can rebuild the article to WP standards over time, but I see that you've also removed Mr. Xavier's name from various other lists, using only the summary "nn". If that stands for "non-notable", I don't think I see where you're coming from. As far as I can tell, Mr. Xavier is meets notability guidelines. That he is a poet, a gay activist, and various other things is easily verifiable. I did restore and source one of the list entries you removed, but I don't want to just go down the line and revert without trying to figure out your rationale. Help me out here, if you would. It looks like you're going for full erasure on this guy. Am I missing something? Rivertorch (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's WP:AUTO from a number of WP:SPA accounts. I agree that he's notable, but we're going to have to find WP:RS to substantiate everything that is said. I am not trying to erase the article, just make sure that, whatever form it takes, all relevant WP policies are followed. Thanks so much for your help!! Qworty (talk) 08:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying problems in the article. Whatever the article's contribution history, there's a lot of content there to sift through, and I find it a lot easier to work with what's there (rewriting, adjusting, sourcing, and removing as necessary) than chopping the whole thing down to nothing and then rebuilding it. At the moment, I'm going through it section by section (not necessarily in any order), doing a rough copyedit, trimming peacock language, and making sure that anything with BLP implications gets sourced. Much of the content you've identified as problematic is verifiable and not controversial; while you're free to remove it, it's not really doing any harm. I'm almost done with it for tonight but fully intend to return and give it a more thorough going-over in the next few days.

Now what about those other removals (e.g., 1 2 3)? Rivertorch (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Mercado

I've started reviewing your contribution history and it seems you've made a significant reduction to Nancy Mercado. Given that the infobox and categories have come out, I perceive that you haven't taken any great care in paring the article down, and I see you've gone down the same path of orphaning her out of the encyclopedia. Is there a reason for these recent edits? Do you intend to reverse them? Josh Parris 11:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Katherine Vaz

I see you've stripped Katherine Vaz, left the infobox but deleted all the categories. I picked a random award mentioned the article and found a citation for it in less than a minute - http://prairieschooner.unl.edu/?q=our-lady-artichokes-and-other-portuguese-american-stories

If I may, I'd like to request that you stop deleting things that are unsourced, and instead mark them using {{citation needed}} or {{fact}}. It would be a lot less disruptive.

Do you have any problem with me reverting historic deletions of yours so that appropriate templates can be added? Josh Parris 12:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If WP:RS exist to support any of the previous assertions in the article, by all means restore the information with the appropriate citation. My only concern in cases such as these is that WP policies be followed. Since it's been such a long time since the material in question was challenged and removed, I don't see the sense of "addressing" the matter solely through templates. I think enough time has passed for WP:RS to emerge, and one of the problems with citation templates is that they can hang on for years, "supporting" dubious material. But again, if you can find WP:RS, you'd be hard-pressed to find any editor who'd have any issue with the restored sections. Thank you for your interest in improving the article! Qworty (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we all are concerned about following WP policies, but let's be clear: as I noted at Talk:Emanuel Xavier, WP:RS is not a policy. You may consider that nitpicking, but it actually is a rather important distinction. Policies are contravened only in exceptional circumstances, while guidelines (like WP:RS) are routinely bent and even broken as the need arises. Now, WP:RS (aka WP:IRS) is great for guidance on identifying reliable sources, but the relevant policy here, WP:V, says:

It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged

and makes the suggestion:

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}

with this qualifier:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page.

Unless the material is contentious, there is no pressing need for removal. Your point about tags that "hang on for years" is well taken, but I fail to see how that justifies blanking 99 percent of an article. I agree with Josh Parris that some of the content you're removing is easily sourced. And if the goal is to perfect an encyclopedia and not dismantle an imperfect one, sourcing things really seems like a more productive approach than nuking them. My two cents, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Another barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your recent work on the article Maynard (Australian media personality). HairyWombat 18:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maynard

You can nominate Maynard for deletion if you want. I can only find one role for him on imdb. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Penn State

Penn State Nittany Lions football appears to already be up-to-date with Paterno's wins reduced and vacated wins noted. What else needs to be done and why do you insist on removing very large swaths of the article instead of making the appropriate edits to correct it? ElKevbo (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

An unregistered editor made some edits to the article. Is there anything else that needs to be done to update it? ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right. Editing this one more carefully now. It looks like it was originally written by fans who were strongly pushing POV, and a few remnants of that have remained in the form of WP:PEACOCK. Qworty (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State University

You have removed many sections under this article that are clearly acts of hatred towards the school, your edits do nothing but disturb the natural flow of the article and remove sections that show good in Penn State. I ask that you stop and undo your revisions or I will start to undo your edits and cite my clear reasons for why I did so. Also if you continue to remove sections I will report it as vandalism. I understand if you are mad at the school, but do not take it out on Wikipedia where people deserve to see the truth about a school, including all the positive aspects of the school. Jar789 (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Threatening

Qworty I did not threaten you and I am sorry if that came out that way. Just a couple of your edits showed signs of strong POV and I just wish that you would be a little less bias when editing. Not all of your edits showed signs of that and I thank you for that, so please just as a future reference try and not be bias when making edits. Jar789 (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The term is "biased," not "bias." If you can't even write, I don't see why you consider yourself qualified to edit an encyclopedia or anything else. Are your writing skills emblematic of the "fine" education that PSU offers? Qworty (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First English is not my first language, so I take offense to what you just said. Second I only feel as if you were biased do to some of your edits, because at the time I was frustrated with the vandalizing that just took place on that page. Now that I look further into your edits I realize that I am at fault and your edits did have reason. So I am so very sorry for that. Also Penn State is a great school that has a great education program. I believe that the school is now recovering and will learn from the mistakes of its past and use them to help better their future. So the "fine" seems biased. So here I formally apologize to you for creating this trouble. Jar789 (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

UNREAL!

A very manly man, just like you!

You have been awarded the Super Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.229.131 (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Clark Young, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Samara

Whatever the merits of the Tony Samara deletion discussion, I think the tone of your contributions is becoming unhelpful. PatGallacher (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. The best thing you can do is not participate in that discussion anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• My two cents' worth I too agree. For example, you Revealing to others about bestlers wife or child has no relevance to tony Samara whatsoever, is quite mean, and would be considered as a breach of WP:OUTING. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, do try to be more civil in your words. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Distribution

I am not a distributor for anybody. BBB = F <sub>W</sub><sup>\|/</sup><sub>hale</sub>dad (Talk to me) 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter M. Fischer

If you really feel that Peter M. Fischer needs to be deleted, you should (as noted by the administrator declining the speedy) take it to AFD. A speedy nomination has already been made and challenged in the past, as you would have seen if you had looked more carefully at the history. I also restored the bibliography, as it basically does not need to be independently sourced; is there anything in there the attribution of which you would seriously question? (A narrower selection might be made, but that really needs a specialist looking through citations and reviews to see what really are the most important publications.)

I'm not sure that the article is a definite keeper, but it is clearly beyond what can be speedy deleted as uncontroversial. --Hegvald (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

R. J. Ellory fix

Sorry, not sure which pages you're watching and edits get quickly buried. Thanks for the R. J. Ellory fix. Looks good. Have replied at BLP/N. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Dear Andy Mabbett, Stfg, Qworty, • Gene93k, and Xxanthippe, I appreciate all of the efforts and consideration everyone put into the article about Pauline A. Chen. I look forward to working with all of you on different articles. Cheers. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

re: proposal of deletion for C. Kenneth Lee wikipedia page

	re: proposal of deletion for C. Kenneth Lee wikipedia page
	This wikipedia article "C. Kenneth Lee" is under the process of improvement by the person "C. Kenneth Lee" & his team mentioned in the article. If you propose to delete this, please contact Mr. Lee in person to discuss this further. Dialogues88 (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alexander Black (politician)

There was no concern specified in the "Proposed deletion" entry which you added to this article. However, the edit summary says "fails WP:POLITICIAN". The subject of the article in question does qualify under WP:Politician since Black was a politician who was a member of a provincial (Manitoba) legislature, as is clearly stated in the article text. --Big_iron (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Do you think "wikidope" is offensive? NTox · talk 08:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• You don't think dope is pejorative? Qworty (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really. By 'offensive', the username policy means 'things that make you cringe'. NTox · talk 08:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a sock of the other one I put up. Qworty (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

irrelevant warning

Now that the Homer-Dixon article has been successfully decimated by you and JFHJr, could you at least remove the now irrelevant warning tag? Also, what became of the comments/questions I posted here yesterday, that disappeared unanswered?Jbghewer (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• What comments "posted here yesterday"? I've never heard from you before in my life. As for the tag, it stays. Just because the article is shorter doesn't mean that its primary author is free of conflict-of-interest. Please read WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:ADVERT. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

COIN

I suggesting having another look at Laurence Cox article at COIN. I've discovered that Piotr, who was defending the addition, was mentioned in some of the spam links directly by name. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• You mean this [35]. Yes, that's bad. Glad to see you've got the AfD up: [36]. This is the damned problem with Cox: He comes here screaming about citation, citation, citation, how his for-profit spamming of at least ten other articles is only for citation, and how everyone who doesn't understand citation is not a "scholar"--AND YET on the mucky article he writes to promote his own non-notable journal, he doesn't provide a single acceptable citation. I think I will raise this point, rather more politely, at AfD. I have been following this matter closely for some time. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

189.148.186.149

I have been referred to this page regarding the "Wiki-Hounding" of JohnDopp. I imagine he has made a complaint to that effect. Who do I discuss this with, and where? I can't find a discussion.

189.148.186.149 (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Go here [37] and scroll to the bottom of the page. That is where the matter will be discussed. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a number of comments.

189.148.186.149 (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A well-earned barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Many thanks for your help in fending off harassment! Your troll-slaying is greatly appreciated. JohnDopp (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Qworty, thanks for removing the gossip from the Jason Aldean page. I didn't have the confidence to remove it earlier because it was sourced and I wasn't aware of WP:NOTGOSSIP. But it didn't seem quite right to me. Anyway, thanks for doing that and for introducing me to a new policy. Safehaven86 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. Happy editing! Qworty (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by Larkinvonalt

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a response to Larkinvonalt's accusations. The thread is Edits Made by JohnDopp in Re: Douglas Anthony Cooper. Thank you. Your name came up in the response, so I'm alerting you per ANI policy. —JohnDopp (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding continued response on the COI of the Sulake article

I'll be following the situation, but there's nothing more to say right now except for that the edit warring provides further evidence for the point that his account was created for a single purpose. I'll have something more substantial to say if he posts a reaction to the messages you and GSK requested. If this carries on much longer, I might have to register for a pseudonym... :P --86.5.226.63 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. We'll keep an eye on it. And yes, I think you may have to register for an account. IPs can become a tricky matter during protracted disputes. But let's hope it isn't protracted! Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qworty. You have new messages at GSK's talk page.
Message added 19:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GSK ● talk ● evidence 19:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Lisa Gervasoni

You PROD2-ed this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested on my talk page, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look. Qworty (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

For the sheer amount of manual edits you do by regularly and tirelessly evaluating thousands of lines of text and checking sources - literally separating the wheat from the chaff - Qworty, I award you this well deserved barnstar. By your actions you help keep the project a truly valuable information resource and I am frankly - stunned - at how much you are able to accomplish. Lexlex (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

New userbox

Hey Qworty. I am trying my hand at creating a new userbox for users who edit articles with COI issues. I've noticed that you're a devoted COI fighter, so I thought you might like to have a look at my handiwork. Let me know what you think... it's my first try, so be gentle. :-) Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Looks cool! Trying out a nice big one on my user page. Qworty (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can figure out how you can center it on the page! --Drm310 (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it... it was here all along. Code is below! --Drm310 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

{| style="margin: 1em auto 1em auto"
| {{User:Drm310/Sandbox/Template-COI}}
|}

THANKS!! Qworty (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarvjeet Kumar Singh

Thanks, axed now. I normally salt third time around Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Only The Brave Dare

Remind me not to get you angry. I warned the editor before his articles went live to add some sources. They are out there, but I guess it was too much work. --  :- ) Don 07:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Another revert war on Jobie Hughes is looming

More IP users are reverting the article for Jobie Hughes back to their preferred version of the page, which included copyvio and promotional language for Hughes. I'm giving you a heads up since I saw that you did a lot of editing on the page and I'm also letting you know that I've requested permanent semi-protection for the article. I'm not sure why the IP user (whom I firmly suspect is Ohioana since the edits are all the same) is determined to edit the article to where it's so biased towards Hughes, but I think that limiting it from IPs would go a long way. I'm just letting you know so you can keep an eye on the page as well since I fully expect it to turn into another reversion war.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads-up. A number of IPs and blocked socks have edited this article and related ones over the years. Will keep an eye on it. Qworty (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

It looks like most of the editors involved with the Jobie Hughes pages have been blocked for various points in time, but I opened up a sockpuppet account because the amount of similarly themed editing that occurred is pretty bad. SOmeone else opened up a previous one yesterday (which I was unaware of), but didn't include all of the various accounts. I figure that if you want to weigh in, please feel free to do so since you're familiar with what's going on. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ohioana Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Oh god! I have no idea how that happened!! (>_<) elvenscout742 (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your redirecting of a nobel prize winner seems a bit severe

article - hi, your blanking and redirecting this person seems a bit severe - can you please revert and open an AFD discussion - Youreallycan 18:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think AfD is appropriate for a Nobel Prize winner. I've responded further at BLPN. Qworty (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You have basically deleted it - Please replace some detail or nominate correctly at AFD - Youreallycan 18:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've now created a stub. Editors other than Professor Goldstein himself should now begin the process of building a verifiable article with appropriate WP:RS. Any further promotional edits from Goldstein should be reverted. There's further discussion at the BLPN. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Please replace the infobox and the picture and perhaps a little more content that you blanked - I feel you are upset about the promo and the user editing his own page, I understand that but you have imo moved to far the other way - Youreallycan 19:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I didn't blank any content--I removed content that wasn't secondary WP:RS. Please feel free to add whatever content you deem appropriate and we and others can work on it together per WP:CONSENSUS. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Why did you remove his infobox and Commons compatible free use picture? I have raised this for assistance at the article rescue squadron - Youreallycan 19:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Because a picture is not a source. I don't understand why you don't replace the infobox yourself if you believe one should go there. Qworty (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted all the content and redirected this article as well?

Nicholas_Lore&action=history

You have done exactly the same at this BLP? The article two hours ago - you deleted it all and created a redirect - Youreallycan 19:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Each edit was given a policy rationale in the edit summary. If you disagree with any of the edits, by all means restore them with secondary WP:RS. You won't get a revert from me. Qworty (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No I thought as much. - WP:AUTO is not an excuse to edit war. Youreallycan 20:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Who's edit warring? I'm not going to edit war with you. I just got done assuring you of it. Go ahead. Make whatever secondary WP:RS edits you deem appropriate. It's the way the project is supposed to work. Qworty (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

JUST FYI - Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list#Joseph_L._Goldstein I added this article BLP to my comments and request for assistance aty the ARQ - Youreallycan 20:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. Somebody needs to get in there and build a verifiable article with plenty of secondary WP:RS. Something needs to be done about the article's subject, as well, who keeps trying to add non-WP:RS promotional edits to the article. Qworty (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Why not just tag it "citation needed" if you think it needs a reference to verify the information? You seem to be just rampaging around deleting valid information today. I reverted your removal of information earlier at The Family Fang [38], finding the information was easily sourced with a few quick Google searches. You don't help build encyclopedic articles by such pointless destruction. Just tag with {[fact}}, or better yet, take some time searching for some information yourself. Dream Focus 00:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There are several very large coi, paid-editing, and sock investigations going on right now, and to an editor who is unaware of them, redressing the various issues may indeed seem like "pointless" "rampaging around" or even "destruction." But that is not my intent. As you know, unsourced material can be removed at any time, and when we are dealing with organized coi and paid editors, action must be swift. Letting a tag stand for three years or more is not going to discourage these disruptions, which strike at the heart of the integrity of Wikipedia. Even in the edit you made to The Family Fang, I note that you were careful not to restore the WP:SPAM that I had removed. Since you agree with my edit, I find your harsh tone odd. As I said above, good secondary WP:RS is what we need in articles--that's WP policy, after all. I'm certainly not going to war with anyone who's adding verifiable material. By all means, go forth and do so. But unsourced and poorly sourced spam, coi, and paid edits are another matter entirely, and the hard work of exposing them has been done by a whole lot of admins and editors other than myself. That is the nature of WP:CONSENSUS. And, of course, I welcome your feedback. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Not a valid excuse. Your first edit reverted 8 day old spam. You then went and erased perfectly valid information, which was clearly not spam, coi, or from a paid editor, but instead by me, someone who has been around for years now with thousands of valid edits. The history of the article shows there haven't been that many edits on it. Just me, one guy adding a category, and the spammer before you showed up. This [39] was not a proper edit. There is no reason why you would assume that information is false. You could've search very quickly on Google to confirm it, or just taged it for citation needed. The tag would NOT have been around for years. Dream Focus 04:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What the hell...?

I am completely and utterly confused by your edits to Dion von Moltke. I understand that BLPs require heavier sourcing than other articles, but your deletion of 95% of the article appears to go far beyond that. Specifically, these edits:

• This edit removing his background as having no source. Fine, BLP issue. Except this source mentioned later in the article and this source used in the intro both cover everything stated in that section. Surely you read the sources you deleted, right?

• This edit removing a class win at Sebring as unsourced. However the source is in the FIU article once more. Why delete something when you have a source readily available that you can use? It would merely require you to add the source to the end of the content rather than deleting it fully. Not that it would have been that hard to confirm or find another source to back it.

• This edit and this edit removing something that was cited, but claiming it was a primary source. Last I checked primary sources were not disallowed and this source was merely to state clear, uncontested facts. This is clearly covered in WP:PRIMARY. Same applies to press releases, there is nothing stating that a press release cannot be used to make a statement of fact.

• This edit deleting a source simply because it did not mention the subject enough is craziness, quite frankly. It, again, makes clear statements of fact to support our article's statement.

• This edit, although you are correct that the information was not in the source, that was my error from when I initially edited the article down and used the incorrect source. This information is, once again, easily available in other sources that were already in use in the article.

• This edit is just ludicrous. How is removing categories "streamlining"? And then this edit to remove an entire infobox because it is not sourced? What in the world do you think infoboxes are there for?

• This edit is funny because the dead link to the blog is because you deleted it several edits before...

• This edit claiming the information is unsourced. Did you try reading the very next sentence and the source applied to it?

• This edit to add the COI template makes very little sense to me, as I'm the one who put the article in its current state. Perhaps you were mistakenly reading this version of the article which no longer exists. So how there could be any more COI is beyond me.

• This edit claiming something is unsourced is incredibly bad. Of the few sources you left in the article, they all mention participation in the Rolex Sports Car Series, and several others mention his driving for those specific teams. BLP doesn't mean that every single sentence requires a citation, especially if the information is not something debatable.

• This edit claiming that information on Skip Barber is not in that specific source. Fine. Then remove the Skip Barber part. You also removed the karting element of the sentence which is specifically what the source does discuss.

• This edit. What in the world is this? What future event is in here? Although the sentence did have the mistake in stating he participated in 2001 (it should be 2011}, what the hell is that edit summary?

Here's a brilliant idea. Instead of gutting an article, improve an article. All the necessary sources were readily available, you just conveniently chose to ignore them. Now I have to do more work to fix your laziness and restore and correct the article. The<sup>3</sup>5<sub>9</sub> (Talk) 05:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Please be WP:CIVIL. Are you aware of this [40] and this [41]? Are you aware of who von Moltke's father is and how much was paid for this article--to a guy who's been blocked no fewer than fifty times? Of course we need to look closely at the sources. And nothing you've said convinces me that these particular sources would survive an AfD. But by all means, restore the article to the version you prefer--it's not such hard work, since you can do it with a single edit. I certainly won't edit-war with you over it. But there are a lot of other issues involved here and my edits were indeed good faith ones, unlike those of the hands that exchanged money to bring the article into existence. Qworty (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

These sources wouldn't survive an AFD? Race winner in two major North American championships that is easily referenced from secondary and tertiary sources? WP:ATHLETE would easily cover this person's notability, and the source easily establish notability. What exactly would this article be deleted for?

Whether or not someone paid for the article is irrelevant as it should have taken you two seconds to see this edit in the article history and realize that an experienced editor had already cropped the PR-heavy article down.

I would think that if one wanted to have clean edits they should have been done correctly. Blatantly ignoring sources that back information you removed simply because it was not directly attached to that particular sentence is lazy editing, no matter the reasoning behind it. The<sup>3</sup>5<sub>9</sub> (Talk) 05:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Notice: You have blanked a section of the article General Patent Corporation. I I have reverted the edit. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin12xd (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Unsourced material can be removed at any time. Qworty (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If something is a BLP vio, or looks like a hoax or trolling, then I have no problem with removing it at any time. But it is not an acceptable practice to go through articles removing every sentence that doesn't have a sound reference you can click on and read. Please tag the article for reference improvement and add "fact tags" to the problematic sentences, instead of wholesale blanking. I speak in regards to Nicholas Lore. And by the way, I applaud you efforts to expose COI edits, but even an article started by the subject or someone close to him can be salvaged if there are references available to satisfy WP:BIO. Consider the instances where a peacock article is written about someone or some company, then other editors add sourced negative information which ends up with the subject craving anonymity and asking unsuccessfully for the article to be deleted! Regards. Edison (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I should have made clear that there has been coi paid editing on General Patent Corporation. What is your opinion? Do you believe it appropriate to remove unsourced material in coi paid cases? Thanks again for your input! Qworty (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You sometimes say "unsourced material may be removed at anytime," but please think over the statement at WP:UNSOURCED as follows: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for being uncited or insufficiently sourced, please indicate that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If you believe the material to be verifiable, then it is better to provide sourcing yourself, instead of removing the material. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." Naturally unsourced negative BLP info should be removed immediately. You should adjust your standard for "unsourced," and not remove so boldly things that can be checked in a typical library (if not free online). Many editors have started articles related to their town, their college, their high school, or their employer, and these are typically undetected COIs. I recall some discussion of paid editing, including at Jimbo's talk page, at WP:ANI, and perhaps at a RFC. Was there a policy or guideline level proclamation that there is a blanket prohibition of paid COI, or even a different standard for blanking text in them? In cases where RS exist and especially when good-faith editors in addition to a "bad guy" have contributed to an article, and the subject satisfies notability guidelines, do you know of policies, guidelines or precedents for blanking the text or removing sources and then deleting the article? Edison (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Several editors are trying to formulate paid-editing policy at WP:NOPAY, but it is still a work-in-progress. It will be interesting to see how it finally shakes out. Thanks very much for the input on removing unsourced material! Qworty (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I'm not sure if your account is compromised or what, but a lot of the blanking of Philippe Neerman was done with false and misleading edit summaries, misuse of the minor edit checkbox, etc. in a way that appears to be either catastrophic failure of editing or some kind of abuse. I've blocked your account to prevent further disruption until this can be sorted out. WilyD 07:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point. I was trying to undo edits from the blocked user who created this sock farm [42]. By all means, undo any of my edits that you feel are inappropriate. I'm certainly not going to edit war over them. I am one of many editors who has been trying to deal with a person who has created over 50 sock accounts in order to pursue paid, WP:COI editing. But if you (and others?) prefer me to desist in the future from dealing with the issue, I will certainly accept and follow your consensus. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• The original prospectus on the paid, WP:COI editing on the Neerman pieces is here [43]. Qworty (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay - I've unblocked you. I understand one can be zealous - but you need to be upfront about what you're doing. Removing references to books as "dead links" (and at least one "dead link" works for me, removing images with OTRS permissions as licence-wise sketchy, marking significant content removals as "minor", at least one "rm unsourced" included a source, etc. - all look like something incredibly sketchy is going on. WilyD 07:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I am going to take a long step back now and take a hiatus from this sock-farm issue. You're right about becoming overzealous. I appreciate your input. Qworty (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Which is not to say I know what the right outcome for those articles is - a cursory inspection suggests at least some the sources are good, and at least some of the awards are real - I'm not sure about their significance. But don't be afraid of AfD is ambiguous cases - apart from copyright violations and attack pages, going the long way for deletion isn't a big deal. WilyD 07:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
      • You're right. AfD would clarify the issues with a lot of these. AfD involves the time and effort of a lot of editors, and there may be protracted discussions about the suitability of certain marginal sources, but a strong consensus is the only chance we're going to have against those who would seek to profit financially from COI editing. Qworty (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, AfD is a waste of time in unambiguous cases because they can be decided quickly - in cases with marginal sources, or maybe POV problems but not "requiring a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic", or what have you, the effort saved is considerably less, as the reviewing admin(s) spend a lot of time looking into it (and if things are marginal, I often spend a lot of time looking into it and don't come to a conclusion, so it gets left for someone else). Plus possible DRVs, or what have you. It's problematic that a lot of the cleanup places aren't very active, but I'm not sure what to suggest in that regard. Although AfDs of really straightforward cases really aren't that much work. WilyD 08:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

I think it's prudent of you to put up Derek Abbott for deletion at AFD as you mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wickedictionary, but just a heads up about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil -- there may be sockpuppets that show up and try to manipulate both of those 2 AFDs. Thoughts? — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't had a chance to put up the AfD yet but I am going to do it today. In the argument for deletion, I'll mention the potential for abuse and give the evidence you've cited. Thanks! Qworty (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the AFDs won't be disrupted by the sockfarm or newer WP:SPA socks. — Cirt (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it for WP:DUCK. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to 'Huh'

Message: "So you claim to be Thomas Edgerton and that you wrote the article yourself? All right, I've tagged it accordingly. But I don't believe you. If you'd never contributed here before, how were you able to understand Wikipedia formatting in order to produce the article? Per WP:DUCK, the article has the sound of the Mike Woo sock-n-schlock farm. Qworty (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)"

Qworty,

Since you do not believe me, are you calling me a liar? I am curious to know.

I am not sure whether to laugh, be flattered, or become alarmed by the tone of your message.

Your Mike Woo insult is completely lost on me and you will need to explain it.

As for my identity, can you suggest the least invasive way for me to verify who I am to your satisfaction? (Somewhat ironic . . . my next contribution will be on the topic of identity and access management and include biometrics.)

To answer your question about my command of wikipedia formatting, please refer to my talk page, I am not new to wikis. I am new to wikipedia.

After reading the wikepedia user docs, it was pretty straight forward to format the article especially when you have experience with wikis, html, javascript, cgi, etc.

As for my writing style you may have gathered from my article, I publish and develop media for a living. I am not new to writing either.

Also for your edification and since you asked, prior to writing the article I researched biographies in Wikipedia. In writing my article with biographies I liked as a model, I tried to mimic the reading level, style, tone, and format since encyclopedia reference material is not something I do.

Regarding Wikipedia writing and étiquette, there is something you can help me with . . .

When someone leaves a message like yours on my talk page, do I respond to the person's talk page like I have in your case or do I respond on the talk page where the message is left? If I respond on my own page, do you receive notice of the reply?

Respectfully,

Thomas Edgerton

4efrswm (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)4efrswm

• Do Joseph R. Carvalko [44], Steve Nicholls [45], Thomas Edgerton, and all the many others who paid for sock'n'schlock [46] articles get their money back once the articles are deleted from Wikipedia, or are they stuck with the deletion and the bill? Did any of them pay for the 30- , 60-, or 90-day monitoring? Is there a clause in the contract that states that they're not entitled to a refund even when the article is deleted within the first month? Qworty (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Chris Lindsey

The {{AUTO}} tag wasn't needed since all of the edits from Chris himself have been reverted. Ten Pound Hammer • <sup>(What did I screw up now?)</sup> 01:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, okay. Thank you! Qworty (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The No Spam Barnstar

		The No Spam Barnstar
		Qworty, many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam, COI and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Be careful

I know you are trying to deny promotional benefit to people who have abused the encyclopedia by inserting promotional articles, but the edits you did at Dr. Philip Oxhorn were too extreme. We can't strip an article of reliable sources and then prod it for lack of sources. Gigs (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your valuable feedback. The problem with many of the paid editor's contributions to the Oxhorn article (and his other articles) is that the material that he claims appears in the sources simply isn't there. Sometimes there's something very tangentially related to what he's putting in his articles, but too often it's just a smokescreen to make it appear that an article is well-sourced. This is part of the "sock'n'schlock" editing style that is so common among paid editors. Just throw a lot of primary sources and blogs and misquoted newspaper pieces together and the article appears to be "sourced." But it's not. It's a con job. The person in question hasn't confronted me about the editing himself, because he knows that I have the evidence that the WP:COI articles he assembled were products of bad faith and smokescreen sourcing. There are many examples of bad faith in the business of paid editing, but the most egregious one, as you've pointed out time and again, is that these paid editors are doing their work in SECRET, pretending to be disinterested, volunteer editors. There is a danger, too, that the paid editor may feel emboldened by our quite natural WP:CONSENSUS conversations, in order to make further edits in violation of WP:COI. However, you'll be gratified to know that Bridger responded with a rolled-up newspaper to the nose [47] to the paid editor's pleas for assistance with restoring the bad faith, badly sourced, WP:COI paid edits. We're having a worthy discussion, so thanks again, and all of us definitely need to keep touching base regarding the evolving principles and policies of WP:NOPAY. Qworty (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I completely get where you are coming from, but there was one source in particular that showed he was the editor of that journal that the removal of was pretty questionable. Diff: [48]. I realize it was probably an honest mistake. We need to edit prudently when dealing with paid advocates, we don't want to give them anything to wikilawyer about. Gigs (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If you look carefully at the diff, you'll see that it does not involve the journal. Rather, I took out this: "Dr. Oxhorn is the Founding Director of the Institute for the Study of International Development and a Full Professor in the department of political science at McGill University. He has overseen the design, implementation and growth of the interdisciplinary ISID, since its founding in 2008 to include courses and programs across six disciplines. ISID has been a research and teaching center dedicated the themes of democratic government, economic development, states and institutional capacity building and civil society." The reason I took it out is because the source proffered [49] does not support it. At a glance, it would appear to, because it certainly touches on ISID, but this is part of the subterfuge involved in "smokescreen sourcing," to make an article look well-sourced when actually it is not. Here are just a few examples: The source says nothing about Oxhorn being a founding director of ISID or "a Full Professor in the department of political science at McGill University," nothing about his overseeing "the design, implementation and growth of the interdisciplinary ISID," nothing about ISID being founded in 2008, nothing about "institutional capacity," and so forth. It's important to look at a statement in a Wikipedia entry and then actually read the source. I know that the paid editor complained to you specifically about this edit, but he was lying to you, just as he was lying when he wrote a paragraph that he knew the source did not support. What must have happened was this: Oxhorn must have told the paid editor everything in that paragraph, and perhaps even sent some links, and the paid editor then lazily and dishonestly tried to match the information to the source. This is his technique in article after article--just provide a huge info-dump and source it with something, even if the source does not specifically support what is being alleged. It's junk writing and junk sourcing, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Now that I look at it, I was reading the diff incorrectly. You are right, what you took out was about ISID and was justified. I guess I was biased by Caltech's accusations and saw what he wanted me to. Gigs (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ridiculous Your contribution to this discussion includes posturing meant to influence readers to believe you are editing impartially, when the evidence does not support this. Even with the example YOU CHOSE to present as evidence, you are attempting to mislead.

For example, you retained the two passages below in the article despite gutting lots of other content and yet you call them out here with false criticism. What, to make a point?

The source says nothing about Oxhorn being a founding director of ISID {This is a disingenuous semantics game on your part… the source says of him: “Oxhorn is at the helm of the soon-to-be-launched Institute for the Study of International Development (ISID)” } … And…

…or "a Full Professor in the department of political science at McGill University," (The source calls him “poli-sci professor Phil Oxhorn. “Professor”, per Professor, paragraph 1, refers to a “Full Professor” internationally, and the word “Full” is a disambiguation for North American audiences.

Perhaps more importantly, you apparently want readers to think that the above reference was the basis of my criticism of your edits. It was not. For the record, I did engage Gigs on his talkpage and referenced your editing, but my reference was to [This Edit], not the one you call out above.

My contention (One I still support) is that your only real agenda in editing this page was to propose its deletion, a goal you systematically pursued throughout your edits. This particular edit is illustrative, but not the only example of what I see as overzealous content deletion in support of your personal agenda. I believe you saw this reference as Prima facie evidence of notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) #8 and removed it to discredit the subject’s notability in support of the PROD you were already planning to make 15 minutes (and 9 content deletions) later [Here].

You appear to be editing against Wikipedia guidelines and doing so with a bias. You were [Blocked] and warned about this less than a week ago, so this can’t be news to you... yet you persist. Celtechm (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The edit you cite happens to be the very same one that I'm citing. And when you've been around here a little longer, you'll see that articles are prodded and deprodded every day, and at times they are deleted. Other articles are proposed for speedy deletion and then are either deleted or declined for deletion. Still others are proposed for AfD and then either deleted or preserved. All of this happens hundreds if not thousands of times a day on Wikipedia, and there is nothing nefarious about it. Trying to figure out what does and doesn't belong here is just one of the central mechanisms of the WP:CONSENSUS by which Wikipedia operates. On your other point, if you look at the article in question, you'll see that your allegation is false, since I did not delete the information about the subject's employment or the institute he heads--rather, I preserved that information, and the sourcing for it is now the correct sourcing. Aside from all of this, you have now placed yourself in the extremely odd position of accusing me of bias against a particular article, without ever bothering to explain what you believe that bias to be. There's no way even to respond to such an amorphous statement. Qworty (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Suzon Fuks

I have removed the inappropriate COI tag placed on an article being edited by a student as part of her academic course (as shown on the talk page). I do not believe there is anything to suggest that the editor has any conflict of interest, and you did not make any comments on the talk page to support the banner. I see that you have edited the article drastically, including removing many of the sources she had added clumsily and one or two malformed links to other wikipedia articles. (She is not the most competent of editors - not all drama students are very IT-savvy.) There is now no link from this article to her work Waterwheel (website) (but I'll fix that in a moment). I haven't time right now to go through your changes individually but will look at the article thoroughly later as I believe that some of your changes are unhelpful. PamD 08:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hi! Thank you for your message. The user in question is a WP:SPA [50]. You say that the editor is a student--I take it this is some sort of classroom project, then? As long as the editor is not one of Suzon Fuks' students, then I'd say go ahead and remove the tag. In either case, the editor needs to be told not to litter an article with spamlink after spamlink. This is what the article looked like before I started cleaning it up [51]. As you can see, the use of external links is quite excessive. I did not remove a single source from the article; I removed external links. I removed them per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, primarily (though not exclusively), due to restriction #19, "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." Since you appear to be familiar with the article, I will bow to your judgment in terms of those that "should be linked or considered." I suggest, however, that if there is potential sourcing material in a link, that it be used as a traditional reference, and not merely as an external link. Using an excessive number of these external links does not fit current Wikipedia style, as it often makes articles somewhat hard to read. Thank you for responding to me about the issues with this article. Qworty (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In future please read talk pages and watch out for the "educational assignment" banner.

You say "You say the editor is a student" as if you don't believe this to be the case. Students doing assignments are all likely to be SPAs, but if treated fairly by other editors they might stay around after their coursework is done, as useful editors. Please take more care to avoid slapping an inaccurate and confusing banner onto an article like this.

Fighting off the evils of paid editing is one thing, but did this rather poorly-assembled article really look like paid editing? It would have been more constructive to point out, on the talk page, the problems you see with some of the links, instead of removing so many of her links, most of which should probably have been replaced by wikilinks or references. PamD 15:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. Where is the "educational banner"? I didn't see it. As for potential WP:COI, I never said this was a case of paid editing. Recently, two professors, Vivek Wadhwa and Andrew A. Michta, sent students of theirs to edit their entries. So when it appeared that a student of Fuks [52], who also happened to be a WP:SPA, was editing the article, that sent up a red flag. But you haven't answered my question: Is this editor a student of Fuks or not? Qworty (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The "educational assignment" banner is in the standard place on Talk:Suzon Fuks. It has a link for further information which makes it clear that the student is from University of Hull, Scarborough, UK, doing a project set by the academic Toni Sant. Suzon Fuks is a fellow at Amherst College, USA. I don't see how it "appeared that a student of Fuks ...": there's nothing at all to give this appearance. Students doing assignments like this will all be WP:SPAs. Just take more care in future not to add a COI template in such a clearly inappropriate case. PamD 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and read this [53]. Of course she appears to be a student of Fuks. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not at all: "Hi! My name is Deni, I am an undergraduate student.I will be editing the article on Suzon Fuks this is an assignment for the module Applied and Interactive theatre.Suzon Fuks is the primary founder ot the interactive performance space known as Waterwheel" She tells us she's a student and has an assignment, and gives us one piece of information about the topic. How you get from that to "appears to be a student of Fuks" is a complete mystery. PamD 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We've got a WP:SPA littering an article with promotional links in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Of course it looks like WP:COI. It doesn't look like anything else. Being a student or a non-student or the man-in-the-moon doesn't change how it looks--if anything, the user statement saying that she's a student in theater arts editing exclusively an article on theater arts also makes it look like WP:COI. For these two reasons, my placing the coi tag on the article was done completely in good faith, which you have failed to assume. Please read WP:AFG. Instead of assuming good faith, you have chosen to violate WP:CIVIL on a good faith edit when all you had to do was remove the tag and counsel the student on the relevant policies. Case closed. Qworty (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Florida's News Channel page: adding a category

I see you added a category of Defunct Companies in Florida. Please undo since Florida's News Channel is still an active corporation, even though it is not producing news content at this time. Thank you.--Danabrillante (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Danabrillante

• You have been warned by other editors here [54] and here [55] about your recent disruptive edits. Since you are the subject's wife, you shouldn't be adding your promotional edits to either of the two articles. Please read WP:COI. As for your point, you've produced no evidence whatsoever that FNC is still an "active corporation." It's been off the air for nine years! Qworty (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

Wikiwings.

Qworty, IP editors can't give Wikilove, so homemade wings will have to do. I think you're an excellent editor and Jimbo Wales should give you a raise. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)