Jump to content

User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Qwyrxian

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 8 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Follow up on WP:CO-OP + PEGCC

Hi there, Qwyrxian. I'm not sure if you've been to the Paid Editor Help page lately, but earlier this week I received some good feedback on my proposed draft for the Private Equity Growth Capital Council article from an editor who's knowledgable about private equity, User:Urbanrenewal. He offered some feedback, which I |incorporated, but otherwise said it looked good to him. No other feedback has been forthcoming, so I asked Silver about what to do next, and his suggestion was to ask you to perform a histmerge. Let me know if you're game, if you think the draft is ready. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that someone has already got to it. Thanks again! WWB Too (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Kraisit Agnew

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraisit Agnew Vanadus (talk | contribs) 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't apply, because the AfD was closed early as a speedy delete. In essence, an admin decided that CSD was more appropriate than the AfD, and sped up the process per WP:IAR. I mean, I guess technically G4 applies, but I think most admins would argue that, practically, it does not. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Street art

Agree with most of your edits on street art but you were perhaps over zealous on one item; shouldn't have removed the info about Ever (artist), there were blue links to follow to easily see this is an important artist and this section is definitely mentioning significant local artists from each city. The mention of his activity in Atlanta and Miami is to illustrate his international recognition. That info is also easily verifiable from blue links.Keizers (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right--my apologies. It still can't include the Miami/Atlanta: those sections are not "Artists from Area X", they are "Art created in Area X". So, for example, if a UK-born street artist painted something in Paris, per the way that section is organized, that info should go into the Paris section. You seem to understand Ever, so could you try to re-add it? Also on Ever (artist), is it supposed to say, "a shit that Ever claimed"? That doesn't make sense grammatically, and seems more like vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I can remove the Atlanta and Miami. Not sure about the shit, seems like vandalism. Not sure. Not an art specialist here. Just clean up bits and bobs that have to do wih Atlanta or link from Atlanta articles.Keizers (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Another PA by an already warned user?

You recently warned User:Goodbyz on his/her UTP against continuing personal attacks, [1] and removed the attack at Newt Gingrich presidential campaign here. Goodbyz has been reported at WP:EWN by another editor here. In a related thread that I started at Goodbyz's UTP, Goodbyz's last post to the thread here includes "you project your own actions [i.e., in the context, personal attacks] onto others instead of taking accountability". This seems to me to be another pretty clear PA, in disregard of the warning, but I could be wrong? Is this another PA or do you view it as just an innocuous opinion about me, and permissible on a UTP? I'd like to know one way or the other. Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It's borderline, but not enough that I would call for a block. In fact, it's so borderline that it seems like it's intentionally borderline (i.e., pressing up as far against WP:CIVIL as possible without breaking it). That, combined with some other things Goodbyz has said, that it strains my credulity sensor to believe that this is a new user. However, I'm going to take a look at the 3RR warning, as it's may provide a more certain tool. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, and I was having the same thoughts about some of the other stuff. The user has been indef'd for legal threats [2]. Writegeist (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ashoka

I already mentioned the reason. "the Great title must be included at end of his name you think you can change the history that's because you an administrator of wikipedia.? I will report this if you try to move the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaloan (talk • contribs) 12:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are the one who is edit warring. If you think your reason is correct, then you need to explain why on the article talk page. As I said, you need to provide reliable sources that support your position. You may even be right, but you have presented no evidence other than your own opinion that he should be called "the great". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

what the hell.page has been redirected again.no indian refers to him as ashoka the great.he is simply ashoka for most.Pernoctator (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think another one has already explained the reason ,I suppose it's irreverent to mention it again and again. since non of you admins haven't made a proper action. someone has to make an action for it. Avaloan (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

yeah no one even mentions Alexander to Alexander the great. but that's his title. Avaloan (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC) it's simply the historical titles. why would someone want to change them? you want to change the history that's because it's against your propaganda.? then keep that for your personal space not in here.

Avaloan, if you can show that the emperor is almost always referred to as "Ashoka the Great", then a move might be appropriate. But you haven't done that. You're just saying you're right and everyone else is wrong. On Wikipedia you have to collaborate. It really is that simple. You say that you've explained, but you haven't explained at all. Not once. Alexdander the Great is where it is because that's what all major reference sources call him. If you can show the same for Ashoka, then we would make the same move. But the onus is on you to prove your case. I have asked at ANI that the article be moved back and protected at the original name. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


search on Google and you can obviously find plenty of articles which mention his title as "Ashoka the Great"
if you mention just Ashoka it clearly a harm to his title cause he was one of greatest Indian Emperors and no one ever could close to him.
which obviously should be empathized literary. it's same for Alexander. Alexander was one of greatest Emperors and people mention his title with "the great" at end of his name to empathize his powerfulness. I suggest you at least remove all redirection pages
and move this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Ashoka_the_Great
page to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great
it is the exact place this article should be in. since only admins can do that this request goes to you.
Avaloan (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


here are some of references
nirmukta . com/2010/01/10/how-ashoka-the-great-gave-brahmins-the-gift-of-a-song-with-which-they-conquered-india/
imdb . com/title/tt0249371/
larryfreeman . hubpages.com/hub/Ashok-A-Short-Biography-of-Ashoka-the-Great-of-India
asianhistory . about.com/od/india/a/ashoka.htm
Avaloan (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Digital divide

I've requested that it be protected (either full/semi) because multiple users are not adhering to your concerns here.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just self-reverted---i didn't realize i'd crossed 3rr. I was actually in the middle of making my own RFPP request when you were! I added more info to it, explaining the problem that that article has become the dumping ground for a class project, every single semester, and a project which is quite poor. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No you didn't cross 3RR, since I mistook the 2/5/12 and 2/3/12 reverts as occuring today.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've notified the guys at AN to take a look at the RPP backlog, specifically mentioning our request.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Now we've gotten protection till summer, you can use your remaining revert to revert the page back to the non-whitewashed version.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

hi...i am really sorry for what i have done...actually this is my first time....can u please tell me how post a link for uploading an image or changing it...thank you....please do tell me if u can... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai Ciara (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ai. I've left an explanation on your talk page (User Talk:Ai Ciara) about how to upload pictures. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
heyy...thank you for letting me kanow the steps...can u please tell me how to get the license for the picture and reduce its size....i did evrythibg but it said that the picture would get deleted after some days....can u plzz let me know why it is like that..??Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai Ciara (talk • contribs) 14:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's worry about the license first. Where did you get the pictures from? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
i got the pictures from a website....Ai Ciara (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
In that case you can't use them on Wikipedia. The pictures must be copyrighted to whoever originally photographed them. Like I mentioned, you can't use copyrighted pictures on Wikipedia. The files will be deleted in due time then. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian titles

Hello Qwyrxian. User:Diannaa suggested you might be able to help me with this question. Many articles give Indian names with titles and things like Shri, Swamiji, etc. When copy editing, the MOS suggests to remove such titles, but I'm not sure whether use of the bare name is too discourteous in Indian culture to allow this. Could you advise, please? --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Respect" doesn't enter into the issue. Some people have argued similar things for "Dr" and "Prof" in Europe, but our guideline says that we don't use them. Really, this is no different from any other "serious" work--academic articles, other encyclopedias, high quality books, etc. don't use such titles either. The only reason we would ever use such a title is when MOS says it's okay (for example, some peerage postnomials are okay), or when the person is very widely referred to by that name in English language sources (Mother Theresa is the standard example). I recommend stripping them all out, reverting if someone re-adds, citing WP:MOS or WP:Honorific, and explaining the same on their talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I agree with Qwyrxian. The major potential point of contention in my experience would be with regard to gurus. I would suggest following whatever the consensus is for religious figures elsewhere in the world and, yes, that may be a bit of a minefield. Elsewhere, the situation is pretty clear-cut from what I have seen. If you excuse the pun, I religiously remove "Mr", "Sri", "Shree", "Smt" from within article content when I come across it, and this is in accordance with WP:HONORIFIC etc. I have also moved some articles containing those honorifics in their titles (please bear in mind that moving an article creates a redirect, and so it can still be found with the title as a part of the search term). So far, nobody has ever objected, which is actually quite a rare occurrence for me! - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
An aside, I have just created a redirect for the capitalisation issue regarding WP:Honorific. I hit that type of issue - redlinks for guideline/policy articles - quite a lot. I am presuming that the redirect is reasonable. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both very much. I come across this issue quite often in GOCE work. Now I know how to handle it.
@Sitush, I think the redirect is a good idea. At the moment it's a double-redirect, but I imagine a bot will deal with that before long. If not, I will do so tomorrow morning. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions typo

Well, I spend so much of my time at WP:ANI that the sequence of letters has become embedded in my typing movements! Good spot. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You have new messages!

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at User talk:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Lack_of_notice_to_community.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

&

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AshLin (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Caste sanction template

I have commented at User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#Sanctions template, where Salvio has reported that his uw template is now moved out of userspace. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion and DR

This is enough off-topic that I didn't want to put it at Talk:Parties_in_the_European_Council#Request_for_a_3rd_opinion:_Basescu_as_PD-L_and.2For_EPP_member.3F, but just FYI: Discussion through edit summaries is not generally be accepted as sufficient discussion for DR. That's explicit at WP:DRN "Guide to the noticeboard: ... This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." It's implicit at WP:3O, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." (Emphasis added.) And it's also been the in-practice standard at 3O for as long as I've worked there (since November, 2009, and I'm the third most active participant in that project). WP:MEDCAB now generally requires some other form of DR to be tried first before coming to MedCab, as does the WP:MEDCOM. No big deal, but thought you might like to know. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I knew that MedCab, MEDCOM, and DRN all required significant discussion beforehand, but I thought that 3O was lightweight enough that it could provide input even at the very beginnings of a dispute. I didn't realize the tp discussion requirement was explicit. It does make it a bit awkward if one party doesn't come to the talk page...but, I suppose, that if that party isn't coming to talk, then it's not like a 3O is going to help. I'm going to have to drop protection on the article, let the person who's discussing make an edit, then block the other person if they keep warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Private Education

I take your point about addition of education details. I suppose I feel that a lot of these media personalities deliberately bury the fact that they come from a privileged background so I was trying to 'unbury' it. Perhaps this was too unsubtle. But I think the general public deserve to know where people on TV come from - and factors which helped them gain their current roles. --Ray3zor (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, because that helps clarify that the edits are inappropriate: you've said you're specifically trying to do it to present a particular point of view. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place to present your opinions about people's privilege or lack thereof. You are correct that, where available, we should include information about where people went to school (again, it needs to be reliably sourced), and thus it is clear to anyone who cares to know whether the person went to a public or private school. You may want to review WP:NPOV, which is our policy requiring neutrality in all articles. In any event, is it really that surprising that people who work at major media companies are well educated, which means they probably came from privileged backgrounds? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they are inappropriate in general. Possibly the ones in the opening paragraphs. But it is certainly not inappropriate to clarify the exact nature of someone's education. I disagree completely with your last sentence. You appear to link a good education with private schools or a privileged background. I don't know if you are familiar with the UK's education system, but our state schools over here provide a very good education too. I'm not trying to present a particular point of view. I am just clarifying the precise nature of an individual's education. --Ray3zor (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But why would you include it? You don't just include every adjective just because its true. Why is it relevant whether the school is private or public, especially since anyone who cares can simply click the relevant link? As a comparison, if you wouldn't say, "Person X is from the democratic United Kingdom", because there's no reason to add "democratic". You wouldn't say, "He is famous for playing the team sport rugby"...even if instead of rugby the sport was yukigassen, a sport that most readers probably don't know. In other words, you can't just add a descriptive word without having some good reason. The fact that you told me that you think that people are "burying" something means that you're trying to push a point of view. Wikipedia isn't here to "reveal the truth"...it's simply an encyclopedia, and that means we include only relevant information; because we're electronic, we have the great ability to simply link things for people who want more details. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rajputs

We have a rumbling situation at Rajputs whereby some people keep inserting the Saini caste into a list and others keep removing it. I have been among the removers but was by no means the first to do so. I think that we have another Yadav/Yadava situation but, as I say at Talk:Rajput#Saini, the list into which the entry keeps being made is in any event not an inclusive list but rather a list in the "for example ..." style. I would appreciate it if you could just cast your eye over that thread in order to check that my comments are reasonable. If they are and if the situation then persists then I think that the next stage is going to be a trip to the dreaded WP:DRN - dreaded because trying to explain the concepts of "belief" vs "are" and modern Saini vs old Shoorsaini to people who have no prior knowledge is going to be as messy as Yadav/Yadava. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I am not asking you to comment there. I'd just appreciate an opinion regarding my handling of the matter. - Sitush (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm out for about 24 hours; I'll get back to you tomorrow. Don't forget, though, that sanctions may alleviate the need for multiple noticeboards; you should be able to get protection faster if the edits are coming for multiple IPs; but, also sanctions need to govern your own behavior (i.e., sticking to 1RR is probably a good call outside of BLP issues, even though I don't think we're explicitly required to). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It is not a rush job. The issue has been going on for ages but it was me who instigated a discussion on 25 January, although from what I can work out it would seem that the problem had existed for months beforehand. I remain somewhat unsure of how these sanctions work and the idea that it might somehow impact upon the need for other noticeboards comes as a surprise. More generally, there is the ongoing difficulty of off-wiki campaigns/meats/socks/people who simply do not accept that a talk page exists even when told, etc. I will do my best to stick to 1RR but I have to be honest: it probably won't be consistent and since 1RR is not explicitly stated then I'd probably be inclined to let people run to three as per normal. You'll have to warn me as appropriate and I'll learn from that.

I realise that this sounds wrong but the entire concept is awkward for me to appreciate and probably will be even more so for the newbies/drive-bys etc. They are A Good Thing in principle but, as various people said in the AN discussion, implementation is going to prove a challenge and I do worry about the subjective element of it, of which this particular instance is a notable example because it pretty much relies on a knowledge of past events/scenarios etc. I do not envy you or others who are tasked with that. I got a mild bollocking from C.Fred a couple of days ago and was not happy & indeed seem to have been proven correct in practice but, as with you, I know him to be a sound admin. That was pretty much the first genuine warning I have received and I'll live with it. I reckon that is pretty good going in this subject area, and my point was precisely to cause a discussion to occur rather than continued warring. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I misspoke when I said that the sanctons alleviate the need for noticeboards, etc. What I should say is this: sanctions both increase and decrease the need for such actions, depending on who is the alternate party (I'm assuming here that you're a good editor, acting in good faith, not edit warring, etc.). If the other party is a random IP or collection of single shot SPAs, the sanctions should encourage an admin to semi-protect the pages, sooner and for longer than if the page were not under sanctions. In that sense, it decreases the need for extra work. It should be enough for you to drop a line at a friendly admin's page (who, unlike me, isn't WP:INVOLVED) with a note about consistent problems, and then let them lock things up. On the other hand, if the other party is a serious editor who really wants to change things, even if they may be "wrong", the sanctions mean we have to go through DR more, more often, and at greater length. If you look at ARBPIA, every small change can easily result in locked up articles rfcs, mediations, etc. In the case of caste pages, such people are few and far between.
However, I do think we need an article talk page note, that we can start dropping on to pages that are effected whenever it seems like problems are brewing. They don't substitute for personal warnings, and they probably won't be read often, but they should be there, mainly so that other regular editors and admins can more quickly realize the page is under sanctions. I still don't like writing templates, so maybe Salvio could work one up? There's perhaps a model at Talk:Senkaku Islands, though it resulted from an arbcom decision, so it might need more tweaking.
I'll go look at Rajput now. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Prosfiction

Can I ask your expert opinion on the Prosfiction article that I stumbled across this morning. To me, it rings alarm bells. Do you think it is a hoax? — Hebrides (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me to either be something out of a fictional novel (i.e., in-universe junk), or something akin to TimeCube. However, CSD#A3 is only for the most completely obvious hoaxes (i.e., those that would almost certainly be agreed as hoaxes to everyone who saw them and did a little research). I don't think it's quite that far, so I think that Prodding was the right move. If someone declines the prod, take it to AfD, I think. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The author removed the PROD, and I didn't want to restore it. He's a newcomer and should be handled gently, I think. But, with no refs (they are unfindable), the article must go. Plus the image has his new website watermark and the numbers 1, 2, 3 are actually 1, 1, 3, if I remember. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions note

Did you intend to put this at Talk:Ror ? I added the article talk page header template a few hours ago. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just silly :). I've already pulled it from there...but, lo and behold, when I went to give it to RIK like I planned, I see you've already given him one. Well, this is certainly headed toward no good. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: The one (and, as far as I can tell, only) thing RIK is right is that you are at 3RR on Tod...make sure you walk away now and let others handle it. I know you're good about that, but I wouldn't want you to get busted for losing count. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are silly then it is anyone's guess where I rank on the scale! There was a run-in last November with RIK at ANI, then they disappeared for a bit. This time round, it is not just myself and Drmies whom they are reverting & so, no, it is not looking great. Fundamentally, it is misunderstanding of policy as per last time, but there is only so much explaining that can be done. - Sitush (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, strike my first sentence above. Someone has already made that call ;) Sitush (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Just seen your 07:57 PS. Much as I do not enjoy this palaver, I have reverted just twice at Tod. Someone else did another revert after me - and as at Ror, I've never come across them before. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

About vandalism

Can you have a look at this and this please? If you are online I mean. Shriram (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Fae just blocked for a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

i agree delete all things unreliable


the german wwii plane expert 00:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ror

following copied from Ror is King's talk page

Dear. I just came here to warn you about the discretionary sanctions on caste articles...but I see that Sitush has already given you that link. I very strongly encourage you to read about what the sanctions means, read WP:V and WP:RS (the two key policies/guidelines that are relevant in the dispute above), and revise your editing behavior. Since you've already been warned, and now you've taken to attacking other editors (as in the comment just above this, along with calling good faith edits "vandalism")...any more, and I will have to ask that you be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand Qwy. Despite me asking you, Sitush and Drmies, repeatedly, for a link on English Wikipedia which CLEARLY SAYS TOD CAN'T BE USED as a source I have not seen any of you three respond. In absence of a stricture against Tod's use if Sitush deletes correctly referenced material from Tod on the Ror page and edit wars over this why is this not vandalism? Ror Is King (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As Sitush said, a discussion is currently going on at WP:RSN#James Tod. You can read it yourself, but currently the comments are ranging from "in very narrow circumstances" to "almost never" to "burn it with fire". So, the informal decisions made so far at a variety of places seem to be being upheld there. Regarding vandalism, please read WP:VANDAL. That page explicitly explains that disagreements about content are never vandalism. By definition, vandalism on Wikipedia only refers to intentional acts to make the encyclopedia worse. That is not the case here. Further, please note that WP:NPA says that calling good faith edits vandalism is a form of personal attack, and thus forbidden. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process of editing my reply to the RSN discussion but I still don't get you. Deleting valid references repeatedly (note we still don't have a stricture against Tod's usage in wikipedia) and engaging in a blatant edit war with me is not vandalism? Do note you are supporting him and his behavior. Ror Is King (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Qwyrxian,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Sincerely,


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

KoreanSentry

When you blocked him in September, you told him to "not continue the same disruptive behavior or I will seek approval for a significantly longer, or possibly indefinite block". He may or may not be proxying for a banned user this time, but blatant disruption from him continues. He has edit-warred with summaries like this, and even after being warned, he continues. I think there's a bigger issue here than can be resolved with more warnings or mediation on individual articles. Your advice or action on this issue is appreciated. Shrigley (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain if I've crossed over into WP:INVOLVED, since I've been reverting some of xyr edits, so I'm not comfortable blocking him again. I recommend taking it to WP:ANI; someone will probably decide to give KoreanSentry a final warning, after which a future breach should result in a completely uninvolved admin blocking. I can take him to ANI myself, but I won't time to do so for at least 12 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no rush, so I think I'll just wait for you to make the case, since it might be more civil that way. Shrigley (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Since xe hasn't edited since the last reverts, I've issued one more final warning. If xe reverts again instead of discussing the issue, then I'll figure out which noticeboard to go to. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian people paragraph deletion

I posted the identical message to Malik_Shabazz who deleted my addition to the Palestinian people article.

Under the German people article. It says: "Germany had a substantial Jewish population. Only a few thousand people of Jewish origin remained in Germany after the Holocaust"

Thus it should also be said that upon the Islamic conquest of modern day Israel/Palestine the area had a Jewish majority. After the conquest and massacres such as the Safed Plunder. 1660 destruction of Tiberias, etc. etc. Israel/Palestine's indigenous Jewish population (Old Yishuv) was down to only a few thousand people by the advent of Zionism.

If this cannot be included in the Palestinian people section, then why is an identical historical fact included in the German people section?

DionysosElysees (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Did you provide sources? Did they explicitly cover the same information? Just because info is in one WP article, doesn't mean its actually "correct", since all WP articles are works in progress. Also, WP:UNDUE can come into play, because something may be of appropriate weight in one article but not in another. Or, it could simply be that someone else is editing improperly and reverting you for POV reasons. However, I can't really provide too much advice, since I'm not an active editor in Arab/Palestinian/Israeli issues, and, to be honest, I'd rather stay that way (except in cases where I've responded to calls for neutral administrative action). Depending on the circumstances, you may need to try some form of dispute resolution; let me know if you need to know how to set that up. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be great. I'd like to set up a dispute. I think that people would go crazy if someone deleted what happened to the Jews of Germany or Poland in the German people or Polish people articles. I hope on Wikipedia that editors are not bias based on their views of modern politics and allow that to influence covering up historical genocides. I think it is highly appropriate to include the extermination of an indigenous population on any "---- people article. So yes, could you help me set up the dispute resolution.


DionysosElysees (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Think I did it right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genocide_denial_in_Palestinian_related_articles

DionysosElysees (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish you'd waited for input first. The conflict actually wasn't ready to go to DRN. You asked Mike, and then waited less than 24 hours before suddenly jumping to that point--had he even edited WP by that point? Second, as others have now pointed out on DRN, it looks like you haven't actually provided any sources for the claims you want to add...and that's a non-negotiable requirement on your part. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

New proposed article draft

Hi there Qwyrxian, I've just posted a new proposed draft for an existing article (Brian Lamb) over at WP:CO-OP's Paid Editor Help page (here's the specific request), and I mention it here primarily because I note there your earlier stated concern that I may be over-citing my drafts. This is a project largely from the same era as my last few rewrite efforts, and it's possible that this one could have the same issues. There are a number of instances where I've provided up to three citations for a given passage, so I'd like to ask you specifically to review and offer comment. Anyway, no rush, and I'd love to have your input. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

CyberDefender

Could you place state under which deletion process you deleted CyberDefender? I see no deletion discussion, no Prod, and the article clearly was not eligible for any speedy deletion category. You could have removed the allegations, but instead deleted the article, as far as I can tell, based solely on your own personal opinion. I'm fairly certain that admins are not tasked with such actions. Could you please explain if there is something I'm missing, like an OTRS request? If not, please undelete the article, and, if you wish, take it to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It was an OTRS action based on defamation considerations. Republishing the numerous allegations abroad on the web concerning CyberDefender during the course of a discussion will only expand the problem. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Can the page be recreated without the unsubstantiated claims? That would seem to be the appropriate solution, applying semi-protection if necessary to stop people adding in the lawsuit info. They are listed on NASDAQ, which points to but certainly does not guarantee notability. They have over 500 news hits, but it looks like the vast majority are just press releases, so there may not be anything there. The lawsuit itself is verified by court documents, but if there is no independent corroboration, I agree that the info shouldn't be in the article. Maybe I'll try drafting something up in the next week or so in my userspace, and see if there's something worth saving. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Which page/article should be deleted

Hello! Dear, i need your help again, plz check Special Squad (2005) and Special Squad (TV series) they are about the same tv series but Special Squad (TV series) doesn't meet the requirements of a wikipedian article and already tagged to be wikify but Special Squad (2005) is created by me that's, i think, meets the wiki requirements better than Special Squad (TV series). So you are requested to check which should be deleted of them. I've not tagged any of them to be deleted at present. And one more thing, please keep in mind that i've made much efforts to create Special Squad (2005) so please decide with care if you have the right to delete and notify me about your decision, before it's came into action (if possible). Waiting for your quick response. TariButtar (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if I understand correctly, there was an article at Special Squad (2005), which you moved to Special Squad (TV series). But then, instead of actually fixing the article, you recreated a new article at Special Squad (2005). Is that correct? If so, I'll fix it by merging. But, in the future, don't do it that way. If an article needs to be fixed, just fix that article--don't create a new one. If you need time to draft changes, do it in your userspace, then copy the information over (since the work is all yours, there's no problem with licenses since you're the only one whose work is being moved). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ramathibodi

I blocked the IP for the standard 3 days. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if it starts up again on a different IP. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NLIST & MOS:HONORIFIC on alumni lists

Hi,

Qwyrxian, since you have a keen interest in upholding WP:NLIST & MOS:HONORIFIC in alumni lists, why don't you have a look in to the lists in Category:Lists of Sri Lankan people by school affiliation. Your input would be most valued. Cossde (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My goodness...what a mess. What a terrible, terrible mess. Every single one of those should be stripped down, all redlinks and unlinked removed. Some of them may even need to be deleted; at least one looked like there was nothing referenced on it, though I only glanced quickly. Do you want a week to try to add any references first like you requested at the article we've been previously working on? No guarantees on my part when I'll get to those, but I can add them to my to-do list. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Im afraid that I have my hands full with the article Im working on now, given the deadline. I have noticed that these articles have their own set of editors adding content. Therefore, if you decide to clean em up, you could give the week option to add refs if they ask for it. Cossde (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Decibel Audio Player

Where did you get the assertion of mine "that the blog coverage indicates notability"? Could you please re-read my comment there and fix your summary? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it. Apologies for misrepresenting your words. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Sorry if the wording of my request was too offensive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all. I wasn't careful enough in how I characterized your comment. Feel free to point out such things to me at any time :) ! Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Precis of Tod

I had forgotten this aside from Tillotson. It is useless for the Tod article, but amusing nonetheless.

Travel to Rajasthan - though greatly increased in recent times - has a long history that began soon after the publication of the Annals, which among the more literate and assiduous was considered required reading. Its length no doubt made it daunting, and some seem to have just skimmed it. The young Rudyard Kipling, visiting in 1887, despaired of recounting the complicated history and summed up the whole of Tod in one line by saying that his book tells how for 900 years the Rajputs fought "Asiatically" (evidently the remark of a journalist in a hurry).

Is this the shortest ever precis of a book ? - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like summing up all of Earth as Mostly harmless. And was "Asiatically" a word back then? Or was he so pressed for time that he couldn't even think up a suitable "real" word? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Kipling made up more than a few words in his time. Did you know that one of my favourite words - serendipity - has its origins in present-day Sri Lanka? Back before that place was called Ceylon, it was known as the Island of Serendip. A novel concerning the adventures of two guys going to (or perhaps from, I forget) Serendip described various things that happened in their travels. Walpole read that novel and then coined the word "serendipity" to describe the nature of their adventures. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Nina Dobrev-thanks

You're welcome. When I read the information in that book, I immediately thought: "I found references! Yay!". I'm so happy the quarrel is over. --Chiya92 09:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Singapore IP vandals

Just today, in two different articles (Singapore LIONSXII and Boon Lay Secondary School), I've seen a weird series of IP edits ([3] and [4]), all in a short span of time, in the same IP range. Some of the edits are OK, but some are genuine vandalism. Looks weird, can we do anything about it? Lynch7 09:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd bet dimes to dollars that that is just the class all sitting down at school computers (most likely either Boon Lay Secondary School or a rival) and simultaneously screwing with Wikipedia. It seems to have stopped for the moment (likely because it's past school time there). If it starts up again, I can probably knock out the whole thing with a pretty narrow range--right now, they all fit into a /25 range, which affects 128 users maximum. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Okie dokie, let's see if it crops up again. Thanks, Lynch7 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fraternity Affiliation In Bios

You have decided not to allow editing biographical information in regards to college fraternity affiliation. Your dismissive attitude and remarks seem out of character for the open nature of Wikipedia. To us “frat boys” fraternity affiliation is important, the values and friendships forged during our undergraduate years often influence the rest of our lives. It is heartening to learn of brothers from other chapters and their accomplishments, I find value in this and I believe others do also. I also strongly believe that greek life can be a real benefit to our present undergraduates and that learning of the fraternity or sorority affiliation of people they may admire might lead them to join a fraternity or sorority, a decision they might not otherwise have considered. Thus it is important to allow such information. To say this information is “undue” and “really isn't important enough” is arrogant and condescending to the extreme and by not allowing such, you reveal yourself to be small-minded, narrow and prejudiced, neither inclusive nor allowing for diversity. An observation I am sure you have not considered. I hope for a favorable if not enlightened response such that I, as well as others, might continue to point out the positive aspects of greek life and identify the many men and women who have benefited from it. Thank you for you consideration. easimmons Easimmons (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't come here attacking me if you want me to actually respond constructively. The reason I'm concerned is that I don't know that we would add any club that a person joined in college just because it was verified, unless there was reason to believe that it was important to the person's biography. We might--lots of people do--but WP:UNDUE says we shouldn't emphasize something in our article such that it has more prominence than in the real world. And your claims about how greek life is a benfit for people may be true, but 1) not necessarily any more true than any other college extracurricular activity, and 2) don't matter anyway, because that's not how Wikipedia decides what info articles should contain. And your motivation to include the information to encourage people to join fraternities or sororities actually makes me less inclined to accept the information, because Wikipedia is not here to promote your group, your way of life, or your opinions. I don't think it's in any way being small minded to simply ask you to pause your extremely rapid addition of essentially the same fact to dozens of different articles. Note that I didn't revert you, roll back your edits, or even warn you. All I asked is that you pause a bit while we try to get a wider consensus on whether or not this information meets Wikipedia's policies. I'm not entirely certain where to ask; I'm going to start at our noticeboard for biographies of living people, and see what people there think. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, could you kindly change your userpage? I haven't "decided to not allow" the information. All I asked for, and all I am asking for, is a pause, so that the matter could be considered. This is actually a pretty common occurence on Wikipedia: if an editor, either new or old, suddenly starts making substantially similar edits across a wide number of articles, it's not unusual to ask for a discussion. In the end I can't decide anything anyway--Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The conversation, if you'd like to provide input, can be found at WP:BLPN#Greek affiliation. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Page blanking for no good reason

Please don't do this. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I may need some input at User talk:Rajanaicker#Language problems if you can spare the time. If anything there is unclear then please let me know & I will try to explain better. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I specifically linked to the homepage of Tamil Wikiipedia. This definitely looks like it will be challenging. Please don't feel like you have to sort everything out. There are a lot of editors in Category:User ta (i.e., those who claim to speak Tamil to one degree or another. I have no idea how many of them are active, but probably some are. You could also ask at WT:INB and ask if there's a Tamil speaker who could drop a note regarding copyright and also try to find out if the person can speak English well enough to contribute here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Things have deteriorated. On User talk:Rajanaicker it was already clear that there were difficulties and that became more clear several hours ago when they responded to my remark about Sodabottle. But it has not stopped there. I enquired of Ganeshk, who put me in touch with Sundar. That user posted a reply here and, to be frank, it looks to me as if the shit has now hit the fan. This guy had problems on ta-WP and I have already identified huge problems with their contributions to en-WP. How do we move forward, aware as I am of systemic bias etc? What is abundantly clear is that the user cannot adequately comprehend the English language, but it seems also that they cannot abide by the (probably less strict) native language ta-WP policies etc. Effectively, this is a competence issue on quite a major scale. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not at all suprising--I can't pinpoint it exactly, but something a day or two ago made me suspect that this was a user who'd been either blocked or otherwise frustrated at another project. As for what we should do--stop killing yourself trying to fix this. I don't see any way that you could help this person without suddenly learning Tamil...and even then, it would probably be impossible, because, as Ganeshk says, it looks like they've got a fundamental misunderstanding and/or disagreement with policy. Part of the problem with systemic bias is that it cannot be overcome entirely, or only with very special "tools" (in this case, bilingualism). We don't counter systemic bias, as you know, by accepting poorer sources for those victims of the bias. Moreover, it's not your responsibility to have to clean up after another editor who doesn't know English or our policies well enough to contribute here. At any point, you can absolutely just step away and say, "You know what, there's just nothing I can do here." I'm going to leave another note to the user now on two specifics. I'm not going to issue a WP:COMPETENCE block myself, but this can be raised at WP:ANI. Right now is not the time to do so, because he hasn't edited main space since you (finally) got him to stop. Maybe he has realized that he's not capable of doing this himself, and so is willing to let it lie. But we'll see. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just seen this, having just reverted them again due to OR/synth. I'll back off and hope that they do not reinsert copyvios again. I am nonetheless convinced in my own mind that at least one/possibly two of their created articles should not exist, and another should not be more than a single sentence in length. - Sitush (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not quite what I meant. Keep reverting an OR, synth, or unsourced additions he makes to mainspace. Basically, at this point, he either needs to step up to the plate (we've tried explaining the policies and the need for English competence) or we need to establish that he either is unable or unwilling to follow our rules. If he edit wars, that's a problem. If we explain and he can't understand, ultimately that's pushing into his problem. Which are the specific articles that worry you? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rajakambalam_Nayakar - should be a single sentence stub or a redirect to Thottiya Naicker, which I can source. Yes, source is snippet view but there are 47 of them all repeating exactly the same definition from some government report - I can ask at RX for the full page on one of them. See this. Problem is, Thottiya Naicker (aka Thottiya Nayakar]]) might also be Thuluva Vellalar - I cannot make sense of what the contributor is saying. Tbh, with just the one repetitive definition being bandied about, I would prefer to delete the damn thing for now.
  • List_of_Nayakar - there is no way that this list can ever have a meaningful focus because the Nayak (title) is used so widely, but this particular contributor is attempting to confine the list to their own community by dint of WP:OR and synth.
  • List of Kambalathu Nayakars - this is subset of the above, and despite the apparent sources it is entirely OR/synth - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'll take a look tomorrow-ish. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You've already taken care of the first one, and I just boldly redirected the other two to Nayak (title) because they lacked any sort of verification. Let's see what happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please give life to this talk and suggestion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dravidian_peoples#Genetic_anthropology_section_needs_updating Have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am involved in that article in only a minimal way--as an administrator, and reverting just the most obvious OR. I need to remain independent of the content dispute as 1) I have no interest or knowledge in it, and 2) in order to continue to act in an administrative capacity. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad

I saw a reply put up by Omer123hussain, which said "mostly you would have given this reason in begging." I thought this was some sort of personal attack and a bad faith comment, and it meant to say that I go round Wikipedia, nagging editors to do my bidding submissively. Do you think so? Or is there any other way to interpret it? Thanks. X.One SOS 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Omer's English certainly isn't perfect...I'd personally be willing to let it slide because, even if it was in bad faith, it's about the mildest "insult" (and definitely not a personal attack) I can think of. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 08:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding Alice0000 (talk · contribs) Bmusician 08:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Alice0000

Thanks for the heads up. I did not realize how much I was removing. I left user talk:Alice0000 an apology (for what it's worth). Cheers! Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I actually edit conflicted with you on her talk page. I think part of the problem is that a number of people were leaving her templated messages, but very few people have been actually giving handwritten explanations. Yes, she wrongly acted out by removing the Afd, requesting protection, even "warning" other users. But I see a frustrated new user who just is lost with what's happening. I hope your message and mine will help make the process more "humane" and actually get her talking rather than being WP:POINTy. If she repeats the disruption, I will block her, because we have to protect the 'pedia. But if we can stop the problem w/o blocking, that will be much better. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Also left a request on Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback requesting that a AfD revert give an option to only revert the template removal. I think I was confused as Alice about what was going on. Jim1138 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, I left her a handwritten message here a while before you posted, but she blanked her talk page...not sure she even read it. :( Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Corey Smith (artist)

If noy copyvio, then is it a copy paste issue? The core of the article is lifted from the users bio written by someone else. If the article does pass AfD, this issue still remains.--UnQuébécois (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what happens after the AfD. Again, a copy and paste can actually be fine. For example, I'm sure that many many websites have exactly the same information as found in our Clint Eastwood filmography, because it's basic facts about what movies he's been in, directed, etc. If those are the artworks that she is famous for, then they should all be listed, and there is no logical order other than chronological, and you can't change the name of art shows/pieces. As long as she is notable, then the list is appropriate, in my opinion. As to whether or not she is notable, I am declining to look or check, because I don't want to become involved in the content itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the list of shows or exhibits, but the lede section it's self, It's almost verbatim from the artists online biography. --UnQuébécois (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was the lead that was the concern. I've rewritten it a bit, enough that I think it is no longer "close paraphrasing". The one sentence about currently held positions is still a little close, but I can't think of any way to change it that would still make sense and not just be change for change's sake. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

oh wow

oh wow basedgod you're so cool... oh an wow hi basedgod — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.6.251 (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Expand language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Expand language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kali (Punjabi music)

I've tagged Kali (Punjabi music) for speedy deletion, please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariButtar (talk • contribs)

Well, it definitely didn't qualify for speedy deletion. Your reason (no references) is never a reason for speedy deletion--such an article would have to be prodded or taken to AfD. Furthermore, there is no category for speedy deletion that covers genres/styles of music. You may want to review WP:CSD, which lists the very limited set of circumstances that articles can be speedy deleted in. I see that another editor redirected the article, which is fine, though the target is a bit odd. But, I'll let interested editors take care of the issue. I did a little cleanup on Manak's article since I was there. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jan Lokpal Bill

Hi,

This is in connection with one of your edit to remove paragraph from this page Jan Lokpal Bill I have compiled that data in-conjunction with adequate references and resources.

Please also take in notice from resource http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/lokpal.html which I haven't mentioned it before.

I will try revised version of same paragraph again.

Thank you for your efforts to bring light on contests of this page and propelling forward to make it perfect.

Randombytes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randombytes (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Randombytes. First, that link you have above definitely doesn't qualify as a reliable source; you may want to review the reliable sources guideline. Also, if you do find sources, be sure that you add the information neutrally. For example, a Wikipedia article can never say, "This law is necessary because of X, Y, and Z." It could, possibly, include a statement that said, "Person X believes the law is necessary because...", but only if you have a reliable source, and Person X is important enough with reference to that topic that their opinion belongs in the article. There's no firm rules on that (though WP:UNDUE is the governing policy), so sometimes it takes discussions between editors to figure out whose opinion is worth including. In any event, though, the bulk of the article should not be such opinions, but, rather, factual statements about the law, attempts to pass it or squelch it, etc. Let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_28&oldid=1148818290"