Jump to content

User talk:Qwyrxian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 16 September 2011 (→‎A question for you: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Thanks for the tip

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Bulldog73's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TV stations

Hey.

I noticed you erased the on air talent from WEWS-TV.

Not a good idea.

Unless you want to change every single article that has a similar set up to this (primarily all TV stations with a news department---not just Cleveland, but all over the country as just about all these articles are set up the same way), then leave channel 5 alone.

Either do them all (and I mean all), or leave them all alone.

Just don't cherry pick.

Vjmlhds 19:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's my plan. It's just going to take me many years. Several users argued argued about the issue at WGN-TV; originally I wanted to keep all of them, but they persuaded me that, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we should only have really important people. The consensus we came to at that article was to keep all full-time anchors (verified by the station's webpage), along with any other people who are themselves notable (have their own wikipage) and who are verified by the station's webpage. Of course, since there are several thousand TV stations, I believe, it's going to take a long time to trim those lists, as it's not a high priority for me. In that interim period, there is nothing wrong with having different articles be different--no policy on WP requires inter-article consistency; any consistency arises after-the-fact, as a consequence of agreements on how articles should be aligned per policy. Sometimes WikiProjects set a standaradized layouts, but WP:WikiProject Television Stations isn't accurate enough to do so.
Of course, as a consequence of the lack of consistency, it means that, if you want, you can argue on the articles talk page that the info shouldn't be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

124.6.181.195

User_talk:124.6.181.195 was blocked yesterday by you for copyright infringement on Light Armor Division (Philippines). Today, User talk:124.6.181.207 has shown up making the same copyright violations within the same IP range. Could you look into extending your block? Falcon8765 (TALK) 15:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocked. That should stop him for awhile. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV station vandal: A possible home for the black sandbox

I have a suggestion for a possible home for the User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. How about here: Wikipedia:Abuse response? Maybe the case can be kept perpetually open there, without the usual procedure of contacting the ISP. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the conversation at Talk:Neutralhomer, that location is fine for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Here goes. Keep an eye on Wikipedia:Abuse response. When I dump the whole page there, the reaction may be amusing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you

Regarding the BRD-breaking dispute, do you remember I have contested Lvhis' block, wrote any lies about people, or tried to edit-war? I don't recall ever doing that, but my memory can be faulty. Here's the a thread where that allegation was raised by some person. Since you are an involved party, your opinion on this may be valuable. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot conceive of any answer I could give you that would help you. My (now deleted) description of the timeline of events regarding Tenmei's BRD breaking is fundamentally different from yours; I leave it up to you (and Arbcom) what is causing that difference. Also, using a simple page search, I can't find any place where you are accused of lying (I searched the Evidence, Workshop, and main case pages along with their assorted talk pages, searching for the terms " lies" and " lie " and " lied" and "lying", and the only instead where I find that word being used is when you accuse others of lying. I also re-read the specific thread you linked to, and, while Magog accuses you of wikilawyering, trolling, indirect personal attacks, xe never accuses you of lying or edit-warring. In his subpage, Magog never accuses you of contesting Lvhis's block. So, not sure what you're complaining about, unless some other term was used that I can't find. I also don't recall anyone accusing you of edit-warring in the Arb Case pages either, and don't see anything. So, maybe your faulty memory isn't of the events from a month ago, but of what you think people are accusing you of at the arbitration case. 01:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

EotR did say that Lvhis should not have been blocked, and Tenmei should have [20]. She never claimed that Lvhis didn't break BRD, and Tenmei did. The fact that Bobthefish2 has parroted these claims endless shows only he has taken the low road (i.e., lying, deception, trolling) to winning this edit war. - Magog the Ogre

Just like all your personal attacks aren't direct, no, you just managed to imply it... - Magog the Ogre, with regards to whether or not I contested Lvhis' BRD-induced block

I suppose my memory is faulty indeed. Anyway... I get where you stand and your response is not a surprise. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did miss that paranthetical. Apologies. We'll see in the end what Arbcom thinks of the mess; debating it amongst ourselves is hardly likely to accomplish anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know... we are such a messy bunch to deal with ;-) Just wait till someone to quote this as a passive-aggressive smiley --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that: These kinds of debates can be helpful in revealing the motivations of involved parties and the strength of their justifications, although I try not to overdo it. Well, at least I learned that some people have been treating imagined acts of other people as truth. That'd at least convince myself that I am not really being unfair with the direction I am taking. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to change parts of "Analysis of Evidence" over the next few days. If you would like to modify your responses, please feel free. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the point about autism, since your explanation seems to add up. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd prefer you didn't, but I guess I'll just have to go in and re-explain what you did, given that it's a great example of your poor behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is a great example again? Autism? If so, I'd encourage you add a new section and explain why it is a great example of poor behaviour. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended by the fact that you cited Feezo's RfA support and not mine. As far as I know, I gave you some pretty glowing reviews! :-( --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I picked Feezo's comment because he's both "involved" and "neutral", but can't (as far as I know) actually "speak" in the Arbitration in any significant way degree; I felt it provided a better "counter" to STSC than any random praise (since it's clearly related), or even than praise from you or Tenmei, since STSC is in part alleging some bizarre plot regarding the differential between how I treated his comments and yours/Tenmei's/Lvhis's. Of course, if you still think you were right in your !vote (i.e., if you still think I deserve adminship despite our disagreements), you're certainly welcome to raise them as a defense against STSC's calls to have me de-sysopped. It's probably not really all that important, though, since I sincerely doubt that will actually be something ArbCom considers, but one never knows. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really seriously considered the option of proposing a de-sysop for anyone other than Magog, since admins are as difficult to fire as tenured employees. However, I don't think STSC's allegations about you are bizarre. I've already shown how you've given a free pass to just about everyone who was on the same side on the conflict as you (except for Tenmei). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we have a disagreement [1] about the concept of OR being in a discussion, can you help us? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't being very insightful there. I am disappointed. :/ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MEDCAB, Silent ones, etc.

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
Message added 08:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Can't please them all!

User_talk:Phil_Bridger#Dhadhor - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to join the conversation? I looked at the snippet view, and all it seems to confirm is that there is a (lower case) group called dhador that, in 1924, were some sub-group of Yadav Mahasbha in Uttar Pradesh. In fact, given that "dhador" seems to be a translation of "buffalo breeding", there's no reason to believe that Dhador is an actual, separate, named group. I mean, yeah, they could be, given that groups were often named for their occupation, but we have no certainty that there is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you feel fit. It is the accusation that I lied about searching which really grates, and then that I have some obsession with garnering edits at the price of quality. Regardless of what PB says, there is a clear lack of faith in my actions/interpretations/statements etc. I thought it pretty abrasive, to be honest, but we all have off days. I've been reading around on the Yadav issue quite a lot and have not yet come across this group (although buffalo = cattle = Yadav, if one wants to synthesise). The words that I see in snippet could just as easily be native terms for cattle breeding etc rather than subcastes, and the use of lower case gave me that impression at the time. It has obviously had the same effect on you. Given that the usual terms are subcaste, clan, gotra and jati, use of the word "segments" seems a little left-field. I see that there have been other run-ins, including with Anna and yourself during the MKY saga, although I was not aware of this when I posted the link above. PB seems to do a lot of work in the rescue area, which is good and something that I have done myself on occasion, but I've seen too many people grasping at a snippet in desperation to just accept those things at face value any more. I might ask at WP:RX for the relevant page(s) of the book mentioned, given that it seems to be an issue of interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that someone needs to WP:BEFORE, but, then, assuming nothing dramatic pops up, AfD it as OR. All that article says (as far as we can see) is that there were people "employed" as dhador, not that there is a group/sub-caste called Dhador. To assert that there is is pure OR--it would be like taking an article that says that currently, many Native Americans work in casinos and then creating an article on the Casinoworker sub-tribe of native Americans. I may only be only WP lightly for the next few days, but I'll before it when I have time. There's no hurry--the article certainly isn't doing any harm right now. What I really need to do first is respond to the talk page comments with citations at Talk:Nair first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the interwiki bit, I had pretty much done WP:BEFORE without actually ever having read that guidance. Must have learned it by osmosis or something! Another set of eyes would be useful and, as you say, there is no rush. In the interval, I'll dig around to see if I can get hold of the relevant pages so as to clear up what appears now to be an ambiguity. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

got your message, thanks for letting me know --ChristianandJericho (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Message

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Arguments_to_avoid's talk page. You're not challenged, but you were challenged. :) 12:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble at Shivaji; are you uninvolved?

Greetings Q: I've been doing some subtle cleanup at Shivaji, but at some point someone overreacted to earlier questioning of the uniformity of the "Shivaji was a Rajput" narrative. Someone dumped a huge 4,000ish block of text right into the middle of other unrelated paragraphs with no clear transition. The inserted block (aside from being apropos of little where it sits) is a way undue block of "and here's why it's totally obvious he was a Rajput" arguments, vice any attempt at a concise definition. Plus it goes back to 1817 and further, as opposed to simply quoting whatever modern academics describe the debate. I've tried clearly explaining why this is inappropriate on Talk, and made a new section which concisely explains that it's a debated issue (and solicited best sourcing), but I keep getting reverted and am at 3RR. Worse, I'm getting some rather piercing tone on Talk, including nationalist slogans and accusations that I have an "agenda". As an aside, I'm still quite curious as to why an Anglo American would give a "flying Philadelphia handshake" as to who Shivaji comes from... In any case, would you mind taking a squint, or would you prefer I raise it at some formal arbitration board? Here's the diffs: [2]. Thanks for any help or suggestions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the article's talk page and the talk page of the user whose been doing most of the reverting. If you could answer my question there, we can see what develops...Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pictures

I'm leaving wikipedia so I'm just putting them all up for speedy deletion by my request so pleas just delete them. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm literally sick of trying to help contribute on here cause every time I'm on here there's drama. I've gotten attacked several times on here by user for following Wikipedia standards and now this I can't deal with it anymore and I just want out of here. So please just delete them. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin who handles files will delete them. I'm sorry that you feel upset; Wikipedia does have rules that need to be followed, even though they're difficult at times. If you have a change of heart in a few days, please do come back, and if you ever need help, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay all I did was remove one deletion and put with my own saying that I'm requesting the be deleted. I'd rather then be deleted that way then on terms of copyright infringement especially when I don't feel my own personal collection is. But I may return. I just got a lot going on outside of Wikipedia and I come on here to contribute to this and if you check the Sparks Fly page on the history you can see that I've been personally attacked on their several times. I don't come on here to deal or drama or anything else. I've made quite a few friends on here and I'd rather not leave them. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraulein

It is still used in common speech. How do I know? I have been to Germany and Austria many times. How do you expect anyone to find a source for how often a common word is used? ...A leftist SPD minister got it into their head that it was not 'correct' in the 70's, at the start of the PC craze that swept through the more absurd politicians in the 70s/80s/90s. I had a look at the history page of the article and see that you have really been pushing this "no one uses it anywhere, ever" line for quite some time. I KNOW it is used in everyday speech as I have heard it with my own ears many times, my German friend just now told me it is "nice to hear, but is seen as a little old-fashioned and out of date". But as it means so much to you, I will not argue and you can have it your way. I don't see it as important enough to argue. I merely thought I would add what everyone knows anyway, that it is still in use, regardless of a "ban". What would they do? Arrest folk for saying it? Obviously not.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately, when we have multiple sources that say one thing (note, for example, the dictionaries that state that the word is no longer appropriate), then we have no choice but to go with that. I believe you when you say it's commonly still used, but without sources, you'd basically be replacing sourced information with unsourced, which we just can't do. If it is, in fact, commonly used, there actually will be sources--socio-linguists should write about it, other dictionary manufacturers should comment about it, there would probably be op-ed pieces (which might or might not count as reliable), and, of course, we would see it in use in major publishers. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Is there anyway to get my account blocked by request? I don't want anything more to do with Wikipedia for at least a month just to get away from the drama. Please if there's anything you can do please do it. I gotta get away from here for awhile or at least till I get things in my life under control. JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please....JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can do that. However, before I do that, I just need to make sure you understand the conditions. First, if you "can't resist" and sock puppet to edit, it will be treated as normal sock puppetry, and thus will result in an "actual" block for disruption. Additionally, if you change your mind in 2 weeks, and request an unblock, you will likely not be able to get a self-requested block again. So, are you sure that you want a block, and, are you sure you want it to be for one month? If you do, I'll block you, and I will make it clear in the block log and on your page that this is entirely self-requested, and is not to reflect badly on you in any way. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Actually, there might be a better way. You could also follow the instructions here to enforce a wikibreak. Doing this, you'll automatically be logged out any time you try to log in until the time you specify. Or, if you like, I or Qwyrxian can edit it into your .js page for you (if you tell us which skin you're using; the default is Vector these days). The wikibreak enforcer avoids the stickiness that self-requested blocks impose and should be about as effective. Cheers, both of you. lifebaka++ 04:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, didn't check the dates on this. My advice to James might've been a bit late (and he seems to have found and misapplied the wikibreak enforcer anyway), but you still might want to direct users to this in the future, if blocking them could be problematic. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil kshatriya

As you wish. But i will copy it & let you arrange it because just don't have time to follow your advises.Rajkris (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mostly uncited/unlinked list of villages

If this were the MKY scenario then the list at List_of_villages_in_Jayal_Tehsil would be deleted. But it is not MKY, so how best do I approach it? I could cut it back to just the three linked villages, on the basis that the remainder fail WP:V etc but I know that villages are usually though to be inherently notable. Does such notability apply to lists of the things? I don't fancy trawling through various sources in an attempt to find co-ords etc for a list this long. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the article creator and explain that it would really help if we had a source for those villages, possibly a census document might exist (don't recall if they go down to that level). I just tried searching myself, and I can't find anything reliable. However, one thing that does inspire a little bit of confidence is that Jatland lists a fair number of these at [3]. Obviously, open wiki, unreliable source, but at least it makes me believe the list isn't entirely fiction.
If I got no response, I'd throw an unreferenced tag on it, ask for input at the India-pages noticeboard, and then leave it for no less than 2 months. As you say, this isn't MYK--in his case we had an editor adamantly refuse to help fight every little detail, and in general, not act in good faith. Thus, his entire lists were suspect. Here, I don't see that...yet. So no real harm comes from the list hanging around, hoping for a ref, at least for a while. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sound. I've now found three more such lists and expect others to turn up. Indeed, I am going through articles removing jatland.com citations (unreliable, as you say) and that is how these are turning up. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much joy! Having worked through all 122 articles relating to the dodgy jatland.com isue, it was only the three additional lists:
I have left a note on the creator's page and shall leave it for a while because they are contributing only occasionally at present. Your guidance is appreciated: the last thing I need is another confrontation. You may find this difficult to believe, but I do think that I am improving ... but have a long way to go yet.
I queried at User_talk:Reaper Eternal as to whether jatland.com should be filtered and 28bytes has suggested that I propose something at the spam blocklist forum. Something else for me to have a think about, mainly because the usage is not really spam but lack of policy appreciation. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:BLACKLIST, though it is titled the "Spam blacklist" doesn't actually state that it is only for spam....but if you read the page, you can see how extremely cautious it is in recommending things be added. The reason why jatland might possibly qualify is that there is literally no legitimate use for any link to Jatland anywhere on Wikipedia, unless at some point in the future we decide the wiki itself is notable and thus we should create Jatland; but there's a way to make a special exception for individual pages. Maybe what might work is to wait a few weeks, and then run another check to see how many jatland links show up, and, who specifically is adding them (just one or two users? mostly new/non-confirmed users? etc.). If that 122 is just what has accumulated over several years, it's likely that simple maintenance is the way to handle the problem. One concern for me with the spam blacklist is that a new user who legitimately doesn't understand WP:RS/WP:EL isn't really given clear guidance if the blacklist hits them. XLinkBot is a little better in some ways, because it gives a fuller explanation. If the number is relatively low (say, only a few additions a week), an edit filter might be even the best--all that would do is keep a record everytime someone tries to add it, then it would be up to one of us to check the filter every so often and go purge the articles of the problem link; this would give us the chance to leave personalized notes to those who've contributed it. But if it's mostly anon editors, or if it's coming much more rapidly, then we should strongly consider an automatic solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chop suey

Thanks for your intervention! --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav lead

Excellent! I am on record as being useless at creating useful leads, and it is for reasons that I really do not understand (how my brain is wired, presumably). However, I do know a good one when I see it. Yours is one of those based on the current article content. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! One of the problems I often have on Wikipedia is that, as an academic in a "softer" field (rhetoric/composition studies), I'm actually used to drawing conclusions and synthesizing information naturally. In the body of an article, of course, this can be okay but can easily fall afoul of WP:OR. For a lead, though, it really is about giving the whole article a good read through and then picking out what is most important. Your bodies are so well written it's a lot easier to pick out the key info and summarize it; if you ever have situations on other articles where you've done a major body revision but don't know what to do with the lead, call me in and I'll be happy to give it a rewrite. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at MangoWong's talk page.
Message added 12:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MW ℳ 12:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice.

Kindly look into Economy section images quantity, which are forcibly inserted in the section, beyond that the editor is un necessarily insisting to maintain that size of images, please see his arguments here, here and here. I need your advice.

Secondly, I believe that this talk is a sock puppet of recently blocked User:Dragonbooster4, whose tone and insisting attitude for adding image is similar. And by chance if he is hot a sock puppet then he should first learn the articles styles and do's and dont's then he/she may approach for editing. Though without reading the archived discussions on the article talk page, he is insisting to add the images, were as previously on the talk page it came to consensus among the editors that they shall not add more than 1 or 2 images per section and as a new user he need to read and implement previous consensus.
though, even after advising , this editor is not refraining from destructive activities and unnecessary involving others in edit war. Kindly advice, regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a sockpuppet investigation on Eeeanadu; I'll be shocked if it's not the same person; note that this person has been socking for a long time, and has had several dozen sockpuppets (plus sometimes edits as an IP). Assuming I'm right, he'll be blocked; at that point, just roll back all of the edits. Then, if he comes back (as he probably will), we'll rinse and repeat. If I'm wrong, then I'll help deal with the issue directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response , Well, you might have noticed that, the blocked sock had repeatedly accused me as disruptive and aggressive user. was my approach to you regarding this issue is aggressive? rather than involving in edit war. if I had not brought the issue upto you he might have spoiled the article again. the hardwork and lot of researched information would have been again spoiled. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider anything that sock says as relevant or accurate. It is abundantly clear that xe simply wants to control articles and make them read only the way xe wants them to read. If you spot another new editor who seems similar (pay close attention to the way they talk on the talk page or in edit summaries), let me know and I'll re-open the SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Gyanvigyan1's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MW ℳ 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sock

I wasnt blocked, I was a suspected sock, which I am not, I have no idea who the other user was, u please check the hyderabad article edit history, revision history and discussion page. I was new to wikipedia (Eeenadu (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Hiii

I did not dominate hyderabad article, which attempt of mine shows I am into dominating the article, please check hyderabad discussion page and look at the way I came to Consensus with other aggressive user omer123hussain, may be he is a sock puppet. (Eeenadu (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

hii

Yes I am not dragonboosetr for sure, it was user omer123hussain, demanded his own way, not me u check his approach towards fellow editors and speak, I was the one who insisted him not to be disruptive in his edits the revision history page and discussion page of Hyderabad article. I think u should take ur case back. further, I am into editing with neutral statements, you check my other edits and edit summaries in other articles. You also check with user omer123hussain. edit habits and then use judgement. 

(Eeenadu (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

ur free

  • to undo my edits, but the edit I am undid now was initially not accepted by me initially
  • the edits of mikewazowski I undid was not my view, my view initially was to retain raj bhavan road
  • but after going through consensus, I replaced images as per consensus with omer123hussain
(Eeenadu (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Caste groups of India

See the recent edit history of Reddy ... Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the beginnings of an edit war to me. Since you've noticed the problem, the best thing to do is to go to the article's talk page and discuss it. No one has actually gotten up to 3RR, much less crossed it yet, so it's alright on that regard (although the random edit by a random IP in the middle does worry me). I'll put the article on my watch list and see if it gets worth. But one thing worth remembering is that, even if you're sure you are right, rather than edit war to keep the article the way you want it, go to talk and discuss the issue; or, at a bare minimum, discuss it at the same time as you make your 1st or 2nd revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tp comment

thanks for the opportunity--I've been meaning to say this. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning templates

I meant to put it on the user page --ChristianandJericho 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian&oldid=450739607"