User talk:Qwyrxian

Pratibha Patil

What do you mean 'that' information? I cited all the necessary references there and they go undisputed. I also notice other users making the same complaints related to the article. Are you accusing that we're just making this stuff up but by luck strike commonalities? Your argument has no reason with it, just lot of words that make me suspect your claim of being 'japanese' , not being 'indian'. However I will try to get the consensus. Thank you for your notice. Intwizs (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

SEAL? -

Seal GUI, the entry for which you deleted, should've actually been merged into a certain DOS article. oZone GUI and OpenPine apparently derive from it (thugh oZone seems to have ditched or reduced the inner API). Please restore the page, and merge it into a short article describing the most notable DOS desktops. SEAL, or a similar desktop, was apparently used for sketching the laptop UI in Jagged Alliance (laptops of the era lagged behind more significantly than current ones). Yura87 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, deletion was the intended result. However, I am willing put a copy in your userspace if you want to try merging some of the content. Note, though, that you should only merge content which is verified by reliable sourcs. Let me know if you want it in your sandbox. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your JPOV on Korea/Japan dispute

I'm a new user in Enlgish Wikipedia. I don't know this is proper comment to adminstrator. However, I think adminstrator should keep fair and neutral postion editing stance on Korea/Japan disputed topic, even you are Japanese adminstrator. As i know, Administrators acting in this role are neutral This section blanking is hard to see neutral. I sincerly asking you. Administrator should not pushing their national POV on dispute topic.

This is user express by WP:ADMINABUSE "If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, he or she should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner."

--Ejwcun (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not Japanese, even though I live in Japan. Second, that information was previously removed for very specific reasons:

1. The first two paragraphs have nothing whatsoever to do with the Rusk documents. Adding them there is implying a conclusion about the documents that is not contained in them, nor in commentary about them. That's synthesis, which is not allowed (it's a part of the rules forbidding original research).
2. The Korean Herald article is an opinion article. Even though it appears in a reputable newspaper, it is clearly a statement of opinion, not one of neutral scholarship/journalism (sentences like "" The series of events taught the government a lesson. Its so-called "quiet diplomacy" and actual occupation of Dokdo are not solutions to the problem. Ironically, it was Japan that used "quiet diplomacy" to successfully claim Dokdo. " clearly indicate a single opinion, not one of analyzing the debate).
3. prkorea.com is an opinion website, not published by a body of scholars or other people with long term evidence of good editorial judgment. It falls under WP:SPS, and, as such, is not a reliable source per our guidelines.

I hope this explains more clearly why the information was removed--it was not to push a Japanese point of view, but to keep Wikipedia neutral and be sure all of the information is verified by reliable sources. Please let me know if you have further questions. If you'd like to debate any of the individual points, probably the best place is on the article's talk page; later, if we can't come to a consensus there, we can always pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:TOOLMISUSE

Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanction or even their removal.

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required:

• Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins.

• Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable.

• Reversing the actions of other administrators – Only in a manner that respects the admin whose action is involved, and (usually) after consultation.

• Reinstating an admin action that has already been reversed (sometimes known as "wheel warring") – Responses have included Arbitration and desysopping even the first time.

I know you are very experienced user than me, you surely know these things. I "believe" your editing on Japan-Korea dipsuted topic may violate above things. I "believe" administrator should not pushing one sided POV on dispute topic. I sicenrly asking you I "believe" admin should not pushing Japanese(or Pro-Japan) POV on Korea/Japan disputed topic even you Pro-Japan editor. --Ejwcun (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

1. subjective POV view. The first two pragraph directly related to Rusk documents. the State Department report("Conflicting Korean-Japanese Claims to Dokdo Island (otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks)") mentioned rusk document directly. It is not editor's original research.
2. Korean Herald article is an opinion article ? No, author is a Japanese scholar who work for univ. Even if article is an opinion article, 1954 US state of department document is proven document.

The cited article considered based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

1. Again, 1954 US state of department document is proven document. It is not personal opinion website.

The cited article considered based on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

If you claim is true, then entire page of Rusk Documents page should be removed. The page was purely subjective, it contains too many opinion from Japanese scholars.

I think we need go to dispute resoultion. until that, the page should keep because it is cite material. It should checked by indepedenced third party editor by completely newutal manner (except for You and Pro-Japanese editors). I think we should go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Ejwcun (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Per our standard editing behaviors, you need to leave the information out for now. You made a WP:BOLD edit, I reverted it, for policy based reasons. You need to discuss the issue, and, leave the info out until there is consensus to include it. As such, I have reverted you one last time. I'm hoping that you'll proceed with discussion, rather than trying to force your POV into the article. We can go to RSN if you like. I'm about to leave WP for the night, so I'll open a thread there tomorrow.

However, one final note: I have not used administrator tools on that article. And I never would--I am WP:INVOLVED with respect to that article. Rather, I'm acting as an editor there just as you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You're being discussed there by the editor above. I pointed out there's been no use of Admin tools. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And that appears to be taken care of....I was actually hoping it would go to WP:ANI. Though I'm not actually certain I agree with the final decision. I'm not actually certain they're the same person. The question is, is there any value in trying to unblock them on those grounds, when I think it's nearly inevitable that they'll eventually be blocked for violating WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing that my attempted edit at ANI was caught in an edit conflict. By the time I noticed, Newyorkbrad had already said what I was going to say. As you say, no point in unblocking. I wonder what proportion of active editors are actually socks of banned or blocked users? Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Article on Pratibhapatil

Thank you for your valuable comment on my post, When you have indicated that the two posts are violating the copy right rules of Wikipedia,I have re-added it after para-phrasing, which is the best way (and legal too) to avoid copy right violation. Then I again informed that copy right is violated... Could you please clarify my humble doubts... 1. when an article is paraphrased and reference has been given to it in unambiguous manner how could it be termed as copy right violation? (The entire wikipedia is paraphrased and corresponding reference is given to it) 2. Is there any Jurisprudential tool available at your disposal to judge a matter legal, non-legal, illegal or barely legal?

Now the legal Implication of the acts of former president and the very Ratio decidendi to re-add the alleged facts.

1. The former President of India violated a convention which is being followed by the highest office of a country, The Rashtrapathi Bhavan (Office of the President), this convention is an etiquette followed in all the countries. 2. ANY PERSON, Including the Incumbent president of India, needs the government order to take away or borrow the gifts which he/she received in his or her official capacity. 3. The former president got a government order, the first of its kind in the history of independent India, which is paving the very way for a new wrong convention. 4. The gifts were borrowed for a museum on her name, managed by her family trust, and above all while she was alive!!! 5. It is a popular belief that high officials should behave in a dignified manner by avoiding all possible scandalous acts and, in this case,this very belief has been crushed by the highest dignitary of India. 6. This is not a scandal but a question of law (1)"whether the government is empowered to grand such an order without informing the parliament" (2)"The order which passed by an executive officer at the office of the President is maintainable in the court of law since the gifts are the properties of the nation." (3) "Under what law or rule or regulation has the executive officer conferred the power to grand such order."

I think now you are aware of the legal issue involved in this and who is going to answer it... definitely neither you nor I, but the Court of Law, mean while it is a social duty of a person to inform the public about such issues, In this case, the readers of wikipedia.

Since it is reported in all the news papers of India, this becomes a valid matter for posting in wiki.

I believe you have "Turnitin" kind of facilities to detect copy right violations... then again run the sentence I have re-added if you find any ditto entries then you can block my account.

Pramodcusat (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you don't rephrase a whole article (i.e., change a few words here and there) and then put it into the article. Instead, you summarize it, and insert a much shorter summary. Remember, we need to write in 1 article everything important about her life; it's not appropriate to devote multiple paragraphs to one small aspect of it.

Second, just because something is reported in many newspapers, doesn't mean Wikipedia should post it. Part of one of our policies explicitly says, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We need to write about things that are going to be of lasting importance, and it's far too early in that story to knwo if it will. "Social duty" has absolutely know place on Wikipedia; you can make a blog post, write a news story for a newspaper, or whatever, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

Third, we are supposed to be extra strict with regards to information about living people; this appears in WP:BLP, one of our most important policies. In this case, only vague accusations have been raised by one person/group of people against her. Nothing formal has occurred or been decided. Per WP:BLP, we can't even consider including this until formal charges have been filed (I think it's called a charge sheet in India), or until the story is shown to have long lasting (that is, several months worth of coverage at a minimum). In some cases, information of great importance on scandals can go in earlier, but only when it is of the most dramatic and obviously historical nature and there is some solid evidence to believe it's true. That's not even close to being the case here. 00:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your response All the suggestions will be taken care of in future

Pramodcusat (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Three short pages

Hi. Thank you for reviewing Arun Kumar Pallathadka.

I have recently developed biographies of three persons Benoy K. Behl(writer photographer), Mumtaz Begum (former Mayor of India)and above one. Of these, first one was reviewed by Sitush and considered as notable achievement and it was removed from deletion notice.

• I request you to review Mumtaz Begum and give your opinion.
• Regarding Arun Kumar Pallathadka, kindly note that he has written two books and both are available in google books. And in this angle, I developed the page. Can we consider his writing of books as notable achievement and retain those details (instead of deleting the page?). Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, just writing a book is not enough to justify a Wikipedia article per WP:AUTHOR. The books need to be notable in some way, widely discussed in sources, held in a large number of libraries, etc. I'm not convinced that the publisher is even a non-vanity press, noting that they only have 3 authors at the moment. We need independent sources of some type to justify Pallathadka's notability.

On Begum, I think she just barely passes WP:POLITICIAN. Normally mayors and other local politicians aren't automatically notable, and must have independent coverage (like most people; compare to governors and national politicians, who are normally notable just for holding office). Her status as the first Muslim mayor, along with the coverage in the Hindu, is enough for me to say it's okay. The layout and writing itself is fine. I'm not quite sure on the "World Mayor" part (given the nature of the source), but I'll leave it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Mumtaz Begum, article developed by me. Regarding Arun Kumar Pallathadka, what you have opined is agreeable to me and let AFD discussion continue.Rayabhari (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dera Sacha Sauda

I totally understand that this is not a DSS website. I appreciate the encyclopedic overview and that is why i referred to links. I added only few things with an intention that wikipedia remains an encyclopedia. I want you to undo your action as all the content was required and was just telling about the stats not about all other details like persons attended or the specified area and time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arora.arsh26 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the list of every event that was part of that campaign is not appropriate. For example, we don't list every stop a politician makes while on campaign and we don't list ever tour stop for a musician's tour. Only the information about the drive as a whole is notable in an encyclopedic sense. If you still disagree, please open up a discussion on the article's talk page so that others can comment as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok Join me there (Arora.arsh26 (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographical features)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographical features). 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) 12:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Persistent content removal

Here. Could you intervene if you're on-line? Thanks in advance... --E4024 (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

BTW I know I gave you a lot of trouble on Cyprus-related issues, but I would like you to see this to understand why I am so keen on patrolling certain areas... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dominic Angerame

Hello, I was wondering why the article on Dominic Angerame was copyvio... The quote was directly from an email Angerame sent to the Frameworks mailing list. The list keeps its archives online, so the email will be posted there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.101.103 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime anyone writes anything, it is automatically copyrighted (with very rare exceptions). It doesn't matter where that's written, even if it's a private letter. You can't copy things written in other places onto Wikipedia. The broader point is that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to repost private letters, especially when their authenticity is not certain. Someone's letter posted on a mailing list is not a reliable source. And we definitely can't use that type of info when the purpose is clearly to hurt living people, per WP:BLP. Until such time as the copyright and [{WP:BLP]] issues are sorted out, blanking the article is better. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Can I ask you to self-revert your latest edit? I'd actually have to block you if I were to enforce the revert parole on that article equally. Also, it just so happens that the long-standing stable version was in fact the K-J one, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you had blocked me, I wouldn't have minded. It was my fault for editing quickly and not actually looking carefully at both the history and the phrasing (I imagined the other editor was adding something, rather than just re-arranging things). I was only briefly looking at WP, and should have known better than to edit a contentious subject under such circumstances. Thanks for letting me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please teach me.　A few days ago, I was blocked because of the Liancourt Rocks. But I can't imagine why I was blocked. I heard Sunrise's talk page, but he never answer. Would you mind teaching me the reason ? Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 06:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why FPaS blocked you. I do know that on that article you need to be extra careful about editing. First, don't make one more revert per day (that's the mistake I made that Future Perfect explains above). The one edit that I see you made around that time was a continuation of an on going edit war, so even though you only made one edit, a strict admin could construe that as continuing a long term problem. It may be that he also took into account your comment on the article's talk page, as well as your general behavior around Japanese-Korean topics. As I've already advised you, I believe that your opinions on this matter are too strong for you to be able to edit neutrally. And that's okay--almost everyone has topics that they can't edit neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I act carefully. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 07:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian Hello. Thanks for your message. I know the South Korea claimed their sovereignty over the islets according to some old documents which they claimed written several hundred years ago. But, like you said, Japanese government did not do it, so I changed the edit. Thanks for your point-out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfumie (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kogga Devanna Kamath

Hi. I have created Kogga Devanna Kamath, a page dealing with biography, which please review and kindly advise me, whether it is worth to develop the article with sources. thankyou.Rayabhari (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

hello need help

hello i need your help once again after Suggesting You edits on daniel day lewis and chritopher nolan page,actually could you Please Change M Night Shyamalan 's Nationality To American-Indian,Shyamalan Was Born In India To Indian Parents Then He Moved To USA His Wife Is Also India So Please Could You Change It To Indian-American Please this is proof http://www.mnight.com/bio.html

please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.208.93 (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, his nationality is American. American-Indian is taking his nationality and combining it with his ethnicity. Second, the article already says that he was born in India, so what is it that you want to change? Lastly, whatever it is, that link you give isn't proof of anything--that's just a mirror of Wikipedia (i.e., someone took what was on Wikipedia, copied it, and put it on their own page). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do with such usernames

Hello. Please help. What should we do with the usernames that are just promoting some institute or company, I mean on Punjabi wiki, I've found users named "Shemaroo" and "Delhi Public School". Shemaroo is the name of a video cd company and other is of a noted school, so should they be deleted? Tari Buttar (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know--this is definitely a case where policies vary site to site. Heck, this site is itself considering a change in policy. Our policy is found at WP:USER. Is there some equivalent on Punjabi wiki? Alternatively, what about asking and admin there? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Jannat 2

Hi! If you could, state me a law in Wikipedia that shows "Wikipedia doesn't allow so much of the article to be quotations." Don't change the page again without showing me one. 111.92.93.151 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not what's going to happen. Two different editors have reverted you. It is now your responsibility to go to the article's talk page and discuss it. You can't just edit war to get your way. However, I'll go ahead and start that discussion there, and you'll need to join it. Do not re-add your version until you get consensus, because even if policy doesn't forbid something, that doesn't mean that one editor can just declare their version better. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and when editors disagree, they discuss. While the discussion is ongoing, the page should stay in the previous version. Give me a few minutes while I find the relevant policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:The Banner (formerly User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind) wikihounding

Hi,

Do you remember this? Given that context I have to concern when the same user (new name) disruptively meddles in a thread exclusively to point out my past topic bans attempting to prevent an user from me:[1]. Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left Banner a message, let's see what he says. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not wikihounding. Just giving information about a user who immedeately starts crying and asks for help. Because the subject Maafa 21 is within the range of articles where mr. CS misbehaved before, the warning seemed sensible to me. I did not issue the warning to all users he is having a conflict with at that article. I did not respond on mr. CS himself.

If you regard my warning as wikihounding, what to think about this section on your talkpage? I consider him mentioning my old username as a breach of privacy, but I am not calling in the cavalry... The Banner _talk 17:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall any interaction the last few months. Then it is a bit silly and pityfull to name 1 (one) remark straight away as wikihounding. The Banner _talk 17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrixian: Just to avoid a misunderstanding: neither I am "fooling" anybody as suggested here nor I am in a "conflict" with anybody nor I am "crying" as was claimed above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are not in a conflict, then why did you need to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (as I could see in your contributions)? Perhaps because they didn't like your POV? And when I make just ONE remark, you start shouting for help? Poor Claudio, you must regard me as an extremely nasty and influential guy... The Banner _talk 20:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrixian: I did not any edit at all at that article in the past 4 months[2] but solely comments at the discuss page, the current dispute resolution thread was solicited by User:Beleg_Strongbow[3] and I was invited there due I have supported User:Beleg_Strongbow's edits and arguments he brought to the mentioned discussion page. In the DRN I made one single and short comment[4] as it was requested to me[5]. User:The Banner was not involved at all. Said that, I still wonder what is the purpose of User:The Banner coming to accuse me of "fooling" User:Beleg_Strongbow, User:Roscelese or whoever, in a thread where this User:Beleg_Strongbow (not me) was apologizing to another user (not me but User:Roscelese) for some of his (not mine but Beleg's) comments to her (Roscelese, not me)[6]. Last to mention that despite of that polite and civil gesture from Beleg to Roscelese, who have been the most involved and active persons in the discussion, but no body involved is complaining about a "conflict" nor a disruption nor even it has took place any edit war nor a single complaint at any ANI, but I see the parts attempting to avoid such sort of "conflicts" even apealing to consensual dispute resolution means such as the DRN and using extensively the discuss page. So, I wonder how a isolated and foreign comment accusing me of "fooling" and pointing out my past topic ban could be purposeful at all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed not more then likely. According to DRN -Maafa 21 Beleg Strongbow is just as pro-life as you are...

But you were not editing at Maafa 21? Very strange, acoording to the history. And I did not say that you were fooling Beleg Strongbow, but that you were trying to fool Roscelese. The Banner _talk 21:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We are going the wrong way, but this is always happening between CS and me. You say one word, and he starts a discussion. I admit, I have no respect for POV-pushers AT ALL. And the above discussion shows clearly that CS is a POV-pusher and creative with the truth/sources. And the wikihounding exists only in his head. I follow quite a number of euthanasia/abortion-related articles, but I am not following CS around. I just warn here and there when CS crosses my ways... The Banner _talk 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrixian: *Sigh* I leave this "hot potatoe" (mess) for you Qwyrixian. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Claudio, but you can't "wikihound" me away. The Banner _talk 00:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Banner, I'm fairly certain I said this clearly once in ANI, and I'll look it up if you really like me to: stop talking about CS, anywhere, to anyone, for any reason. You are not "CS-Patrol". You do not need to warn other editors. If on some article you both already edit, you see CS doing something wrong, quietly tell an uninvolved admin. As for mentioning your previous name, there's no breach of privacy: this is not a WP:CLEANSTART account, as you yourself link to the name on your user page. You can't change your name and then call your previous behavior off limits. Only a clean start can do that, and that would require that you then no longer edit the same types of pages you edited before.

As to CS's behaviour, I simply don't have the time to go research it. If it's a problem, I'm certainly someone else will identify it, and once someone does, they'll check the block log or ANI archives and see his history. And if there really is a problem, someone else, not you, will identify it and fix it. And if CS is not causing problems, there's no reason for his bad behavior to hang over his head. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrxian: just to document the thing, Here is the warning at ANI, you made to The Banner, and here is the diff when you still had to block him for 72 hours due he did not follow your warning but he still wikihounded me again then. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You should investigate it properly, instead of believing CS on his word. I know I am not the CS-patrol, and I am not acting like that. But it is annoying to see that you act as CS-defender. So I will keep it easy: I will ignore you, CS and this whole ridiculous discussion. The Banner _talk 02:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You went to the talk page of an uninvolved user whom CS was talking to explicitly and specifically to warn that other user about CS's past bad behavior. That's unacceptable. I'm not defending CS in any way--I'm simply saying it's not worth my time to go dredging through his history. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, a CS-defender. Waste of time. The Banner _talk 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, you're welcome to the opinion. The next breach on your part leads to WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome... The Banner _talk 02:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete my file, please

File:Mount-Equinox-Viewer-Center-Construction-2012.jpg
Can you delete this? Apparently the email I forwarded to the committee wasn't "up to their standards" and have tagged it for deletion anyways. Not sure why a picture sent to me for use on the internet, can't be also used here, but I don't make the rules, and the OTRS people are annoying me. So if you could delete it to get them off my back, I would appreciate it. Thanks, NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it per your request. Apologies, but I don't know enough about images and copyright to advise you how to fix the problem (if it can be fixed). Do you want me to find someone who can advise more on how to handle permissions and the like? I know a few admins who do much more with files than I do. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nope I am all set. I am going to stick to mainly patrolling articles and such, like I have been doing all along =) NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your undoing my edit in List of Scandals in India

Dear Qwyrxian, you ruined my hard work. The data now written is absolutely wrong.The coal scam is not of 1,070,000 crore. It was a mere speculation of news channel before the actual CAG report was released. The actual CAG report says the scam is of 1.85591.34 crore. See the original CAG report page 30 para 1. Link for CAG report- http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/Popup/2012/8/Final_Ministry_Coal.pdf. The second link I gave of news paper clearly mentions scam in the center of page in blue box under the heading 'CAG punch' in which news paper has rounded up the figure of 1,85,591.34 crore to 1,86,000 crore. Link - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Rs-1-86-lakh-cr-loss-in-coal-blocks-biggest-scam-ever-BJP/Article1-914959.aspx

The other scam Ultra Mega Power project scam, see the same blue box in centre of link under the heading 'CAG punch'.You can see name of Reliance Power. Link- http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Rs-1-86-lakh-cr-loss-in-coal-blocks-biggest-scam-ever-BJP/Article1-914959.aspx. See onother link- http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-18/news/33261655_1_chitrangi-project-sasan-project-coal-blocks.

Third scam Delhi Airport scam. This scam has two components. One of giving away land and it is ascam of 1,63,557 crore and second part allowing levying of DF ( development fee) which was a post bidding favour which was a scam of 3415.35 crore.You can see name of DIAL in link. See 1st and last para of page 1 of link- http://cdn.indianexpress.com/news/delhi-airport-scam-gmrled-dial-gains-rs-3-415-cr/989540/ and also see para 1 and 6 of link - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/CAG-smells-Rs-1-63-lakh-crore-scam-in-Delhi-airport-deal/Article1-859905.aspx

Kindly please note that- 1.First get your facts clear. 2.Read the links carefully. 3.Only edit those topics on Wikipedia whom you have complete knowledge of. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for misreading the article--I didn't notice the blue call-out box. I will revert to the version containing your edits. However, I kindly ask that next time you disagree with someone, please just explain nicely--there's no need to be insulting. It's very easy to revert changes on Wikipedia, and I'm happy to do so. Oh, and on point 3--that's not a requirement here, and if you feel you can't work with people who make mistakes, or have incomplete knowledge, this may not be the place for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already reverted. Then why say I "ruined your hard work"? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I sounded insulting. I just wrote what came in my mind at that time but I promise to take care of my words in future so that they do not hurt anyone. But you also sounded rude when you wrote " this may not be the place for you". By writing about complete knowledge of topics I just wanted to say that 'I edit only when I am sure". To make Wikipedia better it needs the contribution of both you and me and many others. I feel sorry again because I am not here to insult anyone but just to give my contributions to Wikipedia.Luckydhaliwal (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And my apologies to you, too. I didn't mean to sound harsh or insulting either. I really should have been more careful when I checked the news article--not looking only at the text but also the graphics. It looks like we've had a misunderstanding, and I certainly hope my mistake won't dissuade you from future work. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)