User talk:Qwyrxian

Probably gone

As with several others who are considering their position - and some good ones such as Sodabottle who appear already to have given up - I am struggling to see the point any more. I think that I am gone. The continual dealing with puffery, reinventing the consensual wheel and well-intentioned do-gooders who simply do not understand the big problems and place undue faith in the goodness of human nature is just too much. We've had the occasional disagreement and the same can be said of others - Boing, Blade, Salvio, MatthewV etc - but none of that is significant because there is (I hope!) mutual respect regarding where this thing is going and for our various positions on specific issues. I hoped to be able to offer more, and more widely (LAncashire botanists!), but instead I am finding myself battling the same stuff, time and time again.

I'll probably be off for a few days, and I may not be back. My thanks to you, the others named above and those who I have omitted who really should have been name-checked - there are quite a few (Fowler&fowler, Regentspark, Drmies, Malleus and Spiffy come to mind). I wish you all well. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that and hope that you come back refreshed, or at least not so discouraged. I do appreciate your hard work. I hope that your week and weekend improve and that we see you back. Best regards. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just happened to notice this thread 'cause your talk still on my watchlist. I took a long wikibreak feeling the way you describe and came back refreshed. Hope that helps. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also very sorry to see you go. You do good work--better than most because you have a broad grasp of history and sourcing that helps you pinpoint when information is or is not useful. On the other hand, your good work often becomes scorned because so many people simply don't want good writing--they just want articles to reflect their own POV. I think you've been hampered by the fact that you've been working in a very contentious subject area that most en.wiki editors don't realize is contentious...and since there are so many nooks and crannies, you end up being the sole victim countless times. I'll send you an email in the next few days with more thoughts. In the meantime, no matter what, good luck and good health (as best as you can). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I too am very sorry to see you go. I too hope this is temporary, that you will return soon, recharged and refreshed, ready to do more battle with the obscurantist cretins that dog caste-related articles on India. I too will send you email soon. Meanwhile enjoy the respite (which in many ways I envy). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you have helped to improve several articels and you have also guided me in certain areas like citation, copy vio etc. I feel you should continue in guiding newcomers; I hope you will return after a few days, after forgetting all the "threats/arguments".Rayabhari (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Help Needed

Hi.Thank you for your message in my talk page. Sitush was guiding me in wikipedia article creation/editing, in the areas of citation, copyright rules, notability. It will be of immense help for me if you guide/rectifiy/suggest changes in my edits. Recently I have created following articles(some of them biographies) and I request you to help me to suggest whether they meet "notability" standards; please review.

• Ashok Gudigar,
• Naranappa Uppoor,
• K.V.Ramesh, Puppeteer,
• Kogga Devanna Kamath,
• Dr. T.G.McGann

and also AFD improved by me -

• Baba Hariram,
• Sham Prasad Kesar,
• Rashmi Singh

Earlier, I remember you gave good suggestion about my improvement of article Mumtaz Begum. Thank you. -Rayabhari (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look at those; it will take me time, so I'll review them one by one, probably over the course of a week or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ashok Gudigar

I've done some editing on Ashok Gudigar. The biggest problem was the use of "Online Bangalore" as a source. Anytime that you are considering pulling information from a website that isn't an online newspaper (or other similar source), be very suspicious about it. I would estimate that easily 98% or more websites do not meet WP:RS, and those that do tend to be in specialist fields like pop culture and computers. Looking around the Bangalore Online site, I saw that users could submit articles. This means it's basically an open wiki--anyone can submit info, as long as it's related to Bangalore. That means it's definitely not a reliable source. I removed some of the info associated with that site, and tagged the rest as needing citations. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am yet to know much about citations/sources. What you observed about "online bangalore" is true, I observed. I will try to provide more citations.

• My request to you is, whether this subject notable, being a living person biography?

thank you.-Rayabhari (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely notable. First, he qualifies under WP:GNG, because he has been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the fact that he's won both a national award and a state government award in his field (plus, it appears, possibly some other awards, too) definitely supports a claim of notability as an artist. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Naranappa Uppoor

I've asked a question at that articles talk page; I'm concerned that the bulk of the article is based on a source whose reliability is unclear. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Eton Manor Boys' Club

Would you temporarily delete this redirect to make way to move this AfC submission which I am going to accept? I have expanded the article and believe it is sufficient for a separate article. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All deleted. Feel free to move it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you're also free to restore the revision of the redirect. SwisterTwister talk 14:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Gurukkal brahmins

Hi. Your reversion of Torchiest's tag removal at Gurukkal brahmins recreated a 2008 copyedit category, disrupting our backlog elimination efforts. There's no point copy editing an article when it's prodded -- likely a wasted effort. The tags reappeared when User:Iyar reverted to his own version dated 3 July 2009. I suggest that if the PROD fails, you might wish to restore the article either to the 3 July 2012 version by User:Qetuth or the 24 June 2012 (02:39) version by you. Regards. --Stfg (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that there was a second intervening edit. I've reverted to the stub, and reprodded. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I had a quick look on Google too, and I agree with the prod. --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(←) Hi again. I would have reverted what was done just now, but your edit summary mentioned a copyvio and I don't know where that was. Best, --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:India.
Message added 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All we are saying is just mention the verifiable fact (I, BTW, gave sources too) or, as you others may call it, "assertion" that there are "segregation" (not to be confused with the word "caste") in other creeds of Indian society also. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Other Clan Names (Titles)

I have commented on your query/concern pls have a look Talk:Pal-Kshatriya. Thanks --Jalaj Singh (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Afghanistan

After you blocked her she returned and is not only evading block but is vandalising the same page.--182.177.34.196 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note--I'm currently investigating at WP:ANI whether a rangeblock is feasible; if not, we may have to resort to semi-protection of the page, which is unfortunate, because it would mean you couldn't edit it either. I'll have to wait and see what at checkuser says regarding how busy the underlying range is. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the range 86.25.212.0/22. Let me know if that doesn't solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Per Elen of the Roads' note below, I had to unblock the range. I've added the article to my watchlist; if it gets worse, I'll probably have to semi-protect the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP used by this POV-pushing vandal is from the London metro area and according to the same area IP (92.4.179.188) exposed here, it is highly likely User:اردیبهشت, the POV-pusher who recently got indef-blocked who seems to share very similar interests and has alot of knowledge about Afghanistan. Notice the georgraphy remarks in his edit summaries.[1]--182.177.66.60 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that they are the same person, at least in my opinion--the style of language in the edit summaries is radically different; furthermore, the changing IPs are consistent in their style, and consistently different from User: اردیبهشت. Instead, they look much more like User: AA193. Plus, :اردیبهشت ‎ wasn't really focused on geography (except as it effected the wider issue of information about the Hazara and related peoples). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal#Requested_move

Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for closing Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal#Requested_move.

After careful reading, of the discussion, the close, and WP:SOVEREIGN, I decided it was a very good close. You did well to not be swayed by the late pile-on. I, for one, had not considered everything that others had said.

You might improve the close by the following edit:

"However, Walrasiad made a strong case against the move, refuting the nomination and citing WP:SOVEREIGN. nNot a single person raised an argument that is compliant with WP:SOVEREIGN, or, alternatively ..."

.

P.T. Aufrette did raise a good counterpoint (Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person), but in reference to WP:SOVEREIGN, Brazil is decidedly not Europe, and his did not sufficiently outweigh Walrasiad's case.

Thanks again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

Hello, Qwyrxian. I saw that you closed the move request on Peter III of Portugal. Your claim, I'm sorry to tell you, is flawed. You probably missed the point that in English sources the name of Portuguese and Brazilian monarchs (which are closely related to each other) are almost always kept in their native tongues. This is why we have Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, who is also King Pedro IV of Portugal, and not "Peter I" and "Peter IV". This is also why his grandson is widely known as "Pedro V" and not "Peter V". Or why we have Miguel I of Portugal and not "Michael I". I have no idea why you believe that we are ignoring Wikipedia rules and when they are clear that we should use what most sources say.

You went as far as to say "i.e., to substantiate the claims made that "Pedro" is the more common name, which no one showed any evidence for." This reveals that you did not bother to read the move request. I'm right now the most experienced editor on everything related to Brazilian/Portuguese history on Wikipedia and I wouldn't have asked for the move if that was what the sources tell. On my request I showed the numbers on Google books [2] and several other editors, most of whom are part of the "Empire of Brazil task force" (and thus are people with interest on the subject) agreed with my point of view. I'm asking you to reconsider. --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And another editor clearly showed that your numbers were wrong. I have a fair amount of experience with just how difficult it is to coax accurate results out of Google searches (the short version is, it generally requires a lot of negatives and hand counting). Your Google results cannot be correct, because you have numbers over 1000, and Googlehits are never accurate over that number; Walrasiad explained the flaw in your search, and after doing so, no one refuted his argument or offered a counter argument. This was the whole problem--you asserted a claim, but your evidence was obviously flawed (as the other editor pointed out). Others supported your claim, but provided no evidence. A requested move always defaults to no move unless consensus is strong to show the current title is wrong, and the consensus is soundly based in policy. As an additional point, you have the unfortunate burden of having to prove your point extra strongly, because WP:SOVEREIGN says that if you can't determine which term is more common (i.e., if they're approximately equal), then we use the anglicized form. So per the guideline, you have to demonstrate that a preponderance of sources support his birth name, or find some sort of argument to show why the guideline is inapplicable in this case (the latter is actually nearly impossible, since this is exactly the case the guideline is written for). All you need to show is that the data clearly supports your position, and get people to agree that it does. But if you cannot do so, you cannot simply assert that the majority of sources use your preferred name. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

FactStraight said: "Having re-considered my !vote based on revised data submitted by Walrasiad, below, I continue to support this move per the arguments, also below, of Necrothesp and P.T. Aufrette."[3] P.T. Aufrette said: "We already have Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, and common usage seems to be similar for Portugal. Indeed, it would be incongruous to say Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person. The first name 'Pedro' is by now quite familiar to English speakers in general contexts, which probably drives the modern usage of 'Pedro' rather than "Peter" for the sovereigns."[4]. If some us ignored ignored Walrasiad was because he is a troublesome editor who once reported an administrator and several editors at the ANI because they disagreed with him on a move request. It doesn't make sense that we have Pedro IV of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal and at the same time Peter I of Portugal and so on. You're incorrect when you say that my arguments are wrong because one editor said so. Since you opted to ignore that Wikipedia says that we should use what most sources say as well as the opinion of several editors (many of whom are highly experienced in the subject being discussed) I'd like to ask you to reopen the move request and let the discussion continue. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is disappointing; there clearly is a consensus to move the page. What happens at these move discussion is that participants hostile to anything non-English scream bloody murder at every move request and toss worthless ghits numbers about. SOVEREIGN is a crap guideline that is biased towards a POV; many guidelines are. Those motivated are the LOCALCONSENSUS that built them, and once they've a wall in place, they fight tooth and nail any suggestion that it be changed. Happens all over this benighted project. Most editors don't care to get involved in such insipid rule-mongering, so endless regressive rules impede reasonable improvements. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit: Okay, then we'll use the rules at WP:Article titles. Since those say that the number one determining factor is what the sources use, then the result is the same. Regarding Walled gardens, that is an appropriate comment--because it looks to be exactly what Lecen is trying to create here. That's exactly why I closed the way I did--a local group (editors with familiarity/interest in the previous Brazilian empire) is trying to create a local consensus that overrides site-wide guidelines.

Lecen: I absolutely agree that the guideline says that we should use the name most sources use. And the evidence presented in that discussion is that that name is Peter. Your evidence is flawed, an editor there explained why and I explained why in a different way. As even the most basic point: your search didn't eliminate non-English results, a mandatory step in such a search. A move discussion whose argument is based upon the claim that the preferred title is the one used in sources must present evidence of that claim. There are a several different things you can search for. For example, you can use Googlehits, but actually do the search correctly. Alternatively, you could do hand searches through scholarly articles--what are the major historians in the field using? Or you could lay out the top 10 tertiary sources, and see what they use. Or college textbooks. Whatever you do, the burden is on those requesting the change to present evidence and arguments.

So, at this point, I won't re-open the discussion, because it's not about getting more votes (and to be clear, that's exactly what I perceive the vast majority of the comments in that discussion to be)--it's about getting more data. But as I said, if you want to gather more data, and start over again, you are welcome to do so. I could have phrased it more clearly regarding the ability to open a new discussion, so I'll add a comment about that to the article now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God. You've just admitted that you closed the move request because you oppose it. You didn't come as a neutral observer. You actively oppose the move. You shoudn't forget that if we have now Featured Articles like Pedro IV of Portugal, Pedro II of Brazil, Empire of Brazil and others are thanks to me who made a careful research. Let's take a look on what English sources say, shall we? The sole biography in English about Pedro IV call his grandfather (Pedro III) by his name in Portuguese.[5] The biography of Emperor Pedro II (son of Pedro IV and great-grandson of Pedro III) also uses "Pedro III".[6] Notice that in the genealogical chart the Portuguese/Brazilian royals have their name in Portuguese, while veryone else is Anglicized. Thus, the author clearly prefers the name in Portuguese, not in English. What about the latest biography of Princess Isabel? It's not only a biography of her as well of all monarchs of the House of Braganza (including Pedro II, Pedro III, Pedro IV and Pedro V). It also uses "Pedro III"![7][8] There are no biographies in English of Pedro III, nor of his son João VI (who was also co-Emperor of Brazil). There are, however, books about the history of Portugal. They also use "Pedro III".[9][10][11] His wife is never called "Mary I", but always "Maria I". I'm going to ask you again to reopen the move request. P.S.: Do not, ever, again accuse me or any member of the Empire of Brazil task force of acting on bad faith. Do it again and I will report you to the ANI. --Lecen (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(before ec)No, I admitted that I closed it because I looked at the RM page, went to the last one, looked at the discussion, and saw a group trying to circumvent policy by building a local consensus, and I, in my role as an admin, enforced policy (guidelines) to ensure that did not happen. Admins are, in fact, supposed to do that. I literally have absolutely no opinion on Pedro vs. Peter--in all honesty, I had never even heard of him until I came to this discussion. Regarding the details you give above--great! Start a new discussion and present those. Give other people the chance to argue for or against them (for example, I have no idea about how much weight we should give that book...but I trust that a discussion could figure that out). Get Google results that actually are correct. Whatever. Just get the data and restart the discussion. The reason you have to start over is that the discussion as it stands now is irreversibly tainted--it's full of votes based on opinions rather than discussion based on evidence. Again, please understand--I did not close the discussion as "Consensus is to not move the article". I very very much mean "There is currently no (policy-based) consensus from this discussion, but a new discussion in the future could establish a consensus". At this point, you have two choices: 1) gather the data and start a new discussion; 2) take me to WP:AN and argue that my close was improper in some way (you've already laid the groundwork for such an argument above, even though I'll of course argue that my close was exactly what admins are supposed to do when assessing consensus). Arguing with me here about whether it should be Peter or Pedro is useless, since I 1) have no opinion on the matter and 2) couldn't change the close based on my own opinion any way. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(after ec)My sincerest apologies if you thought I was accusing you of acting in bad faith. I believe that you are absolutely trying to improve the encyclopedia as you think best. And, as I said, you may even be correct that the article title should change. But even though you're acting in good faith, you still have to do the same things every other editor does--build consensus that complies with policy and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See this. --Lecen (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You said, on the discussion about Peter III or Pedro III of Portugal that "there was no consensus about the move". Well, I do not understand why it's acceptable Pedro I of Brazil and not acceptable Pedro I of Portugal, since both countries speak the same language - Portuguese. If "the name in English must prevail" then it should prevail in all cases. Another example is Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Why not William II, German Emperor? Didn't anyone notice these cases? I'm more favourable to accept what the majority of voters manifested (12X4). If this will not occur, I think this discussion should at least be reopened. The way it was closed created a lot of discomfort for all voters. It seemed like "some rules are valid depending on how much noise and claim is done in order to make them effective, or not". My recommendation would be: accept what the majority manifested, or maintain the discussion opened. It's less energy loss. Best regards, Joao Xavier (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I noted a comment on the RM, which appears to still be open? and not closed-green-boxed (hence I left comment rather than simply support, mainly as I'm not fussed about royalty). I then received a note from Lecen about discussion here. It has to be said that the specific conflict of the consensus on the RM with NCROY isn't immediately clear from the current close summary, so maybe the current summary should be clarified. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given everyone the two options: restart the move discussion all over again using guideline-compliant arguments, or take me to WP:AN and claim I closed the current discussion improperly (In ictu oculi, I just used a different template to close it, though I suppose I could have used the green one). Debating the issue here gets you nowhere, because I believe that I assessed the consensus correctly in light of the guidelines. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the point is that I am not the person you need to convince that Pedro is better. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re (In ictu oculi, I just used a different template to close it, though I suppose I could have used the green one). Okay, I have never seen that one before. Would it be possible to change to the more familiar one - leaving it white may confuse others like it did me. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the point is that I am not the person you need to convince that Pedro is better." Then you shouldn't have closed the move request. --Lecen (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, when admins close discussions, they look at the arguments presented and see what consensus was achieved that is compatible with site rules. It's not just about counting votes--if that was it, you wouldn't need a "closer". Iio, i'll look around and try to find that template. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than WP:AN, the appropriate venue would be the relatively new WP:MR (move review). If someone wishes to pursue that, please go ahead (I personally just don't have the time at the moment). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank P.T. Aufrette. See, I've been an admin for about 2 years, and I'd never heard of MR. Ah, looking at the history, I see it started earlier this year. I have absolutely no problem with the discussion being taken there, if Lecen or anyone else wants to. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Leica M Monochrom "notability"

Hi, I think it is time to revisit the Leica M Monochrom notability issue. OriumX (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're suggesting I nominate the article for deletion? Because right now it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I could do that, though I'd have to do WP:BEFORE first to see if there are any other sources out there that haven't been added yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why not: nominate the article for deletion. It is absurd to delete it. It whould also be awesome if you stoped being arrogant and make your wikipedia contributions constructive instead of destructive. OriumX (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, alternatively, you could actually add evidence to demonstrate that the camera is notable. Which you haven't done. After me giving you many many months to do so. If the subject meets WP:GNG, I obviously would not nominate it for deletion. Thus, the easiest solution is to establish that it does. I don't know much about cameras, but I'm guessing you do, which means you'll be much more able to find good sources than I. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said when you first marked the article for deletion the camera is the first monochrome 35mm digital camera. This is in the article with a reference (that you misinterperted as a blog, when in fact they are one of the most reputable camera review website). This alone makes it more than notable. The fact that it is a new camera in the Leica M series (that is relevant), whould also be enoght to be notable (it is for the M3, M2, Leica M1, Leica M4, Leica M5, Leica CL, Leica M6, Leica MP, Leica M7, Leica M8 and Leica M9). OriumX (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Being the first of something does not automatically make it notable. Most new electronic products are the first at something (first with a certain resolution, the first with a certain chip set, the first with a certain style of software/interface). Our notability guidelines requires that the subject have been talked about in depth in multiple independent sources. Assuming that source already provided is legitimate (note that I did not delete it, assuming that you were correct in your analysis), that's only one source (since the Leica source itself of course is not independent). If you add even one more source that discusses the subject in depth, then the notability tag can be removed. As for the rest of those articles...if I was motivated, I'd strongly consider boldly redirecting them to Leica M. A quick glance shows me that those articles don't seem to meet WP:GNG, either. Luckily, I don't really have time to do that right now, but I could certainly look into it if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick word from someone who does actually know quite a lot about Leica cameras... most older photographers would consider the M series as notable to the point of being legendary. But you're right that the articles don't demonstrate that properly - over the next few weeks, depending on what time I have, I'll try to find some good sources to add to them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. This is one of those cases where I actually assume that sources may exist...but that they require specialist knowledge to find. Ultimatley, though, it does bother me a lot that all of these products have their own page. We're not a catalog. If all we can find on the products is product reviews, they should at least be bundled together into the list article. But, again, probably (for now) not worth my time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added a few references to the article. OriumX (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed 2 for not meeting WP:RS, and tagged the other two as questionable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bhati

I wonder if you'd mind keeping an eye on Bhati, and perhaps acting if necessary. We've had a registered editor adding unsourced material (with puffery), and after I reverted we've now had an IP adding similar material sourced to unacceptable sources - I've commented on the Talk page. (I'm winding down towards a Wikibreak, so I won't be able to spend much time on it or any India-related articles) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll watch. I haven't edited that page yet, so I can still act (borderline, but probably okay...I don't think I'm automatically involved in all caste-articles). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - and yep, I'm sure you're OK re WP:Involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

MrIndustry

How do you mark it as a draft because he clearly has not?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's {{Userspace draft}}, which I've added to the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 02:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have a message for you on User talk:Ghajinidetails ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 02:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Something to tell

I'd like to let you know that I replied to your comment on Pedro III's talk page. But most importantly: I'd like to warn you that I'm going to ignore Walrasiad. I'm not going to do that because I believe his arguments are better but because I know him from other previous discussions and I know that he can only argue by insulting and threatening others. Months ago I opened a move request on John VI of Portugal. After awhile an administrator came and closed the move request and moved it, against Walrasiad's wishes. Instead of going to talk to the administrator and later opening a move review, he went to the ANI and insulted the administrator, me and several other editors, asking us to be blocked. Before that I tried to find a common ground (see here) and my attempt of reconciliation was met with this: "Lecen, are you proposing that I sell out the integrity of Wikipedia, or else you'll give me a headache? Take possession of articles? Or else? In case you haven't noticed Lecen, I don't much appreciate your gangland tactics. So you now realize your bullying methods - manipulation, personal attacks, baseless accusations, attempted blocks, etc. - do not intimidate me. So now you want to detach the point of strongest resistance, bribe me off with a side-deal, so you can focus your fire on harassing and bullying the other editors? Just what kind of person do you take me for? To my shame, I have allowed my honor to be tattered in this affair, but I still have some left. Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight." Since I want to avoid an sterile discussion, or worse, a bad environment, I will ignore him. --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine; there's no need for everyone to reply to each other. What matters is that you all figure out the most commonly used name in sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I see that kind of talk, I'll warn and/or block the offending editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Range block

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. As far as I could see, only two IPs from that range ever edited that article, and between them they only made three edits in ten days, with the last edit being nearly a week ago.

I would not advocate blocking the range on that basis. Just block any problematic IPs - there's a reasonable amount of legitimate traffic on there as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've unblocked it; I'll watchlist the article in question and, for now, block socks as they come, though if it persists for a long period of time, I may have to consider other options. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AFC review

Hi. Can you please review this article, which I have submitted for creation, as there is a long que of more than 800 articles in AFC review?-Rayabhari (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that I can't do. It's not fair to the other 800 people in the cue to jump yours ahead. There's no rush, right? I still have to try to go back and review the other ones you left me, when i have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Caste

Would you like to weigh in (even if very briefly) in this RfC on Caste. Your experience on Wikipedia will be very helpful. The RfC link is: Talk:Caste#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste.3F

I have invited three other editors and announced my intention to do so here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You should make up your mind

You're arguing people who are supporting the move but carefully ignoring the ones who are opposing it. You must decide wether you are a neutral observer or someone who opposes the move. I know that you opposes it but you can not act like an administrator and pretend that you're neutral wyhen you clearly aren't. --Lecen (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That particular comment just caught my eye as exactly the sort of comment that lead me to the non consensus decision last time. If at all possible, I would prefer that this discussion produce a clear guideline compliant result. I really, honestly, truly don't care if the result is Keep (Peter) or Move (Pedro). I know that I cannot offer persuasive evidence, but I haven't even actually read the article yet. Other than being a king of Portugal, and thus connected with the previous Portugeuse imperial system and the Empire of Brazil, I don't know anything about this subject. What I do know about is Wikipedia guidelines, and the fact that many editors don't understand how to handle discussions of this type. Your initial approach was actually correct, it just happened to have flawed data. Seriously, I'm begging you here: you're the self-proclaimed expert. You should know the data better than anyone else. What are the top 10 serious, scholarly sources for this subject, and what term(s) do they use? What terms do quality tertiary sources uses? If you do a survey of all high quality books and academic journals that cover the subject, what percentage use each term? On each of these, pay more attention to recent results (say, the past 20 years or so), but don't necessarily ignore all older results. If you can answer these two questions definitively, then you will be a lot closer to knowing what the article title should be. Until you can answer that, you can't know what the title should be, because that is how Wikipedia (is supposed to) decide article titles. Really, I'm trying to help you out here--if your intuition about the names is correct, then I'm trying to give you every tool possible to prove it while also keeping the discussion from becoming derailed like last time. Necrothesp's comment actually hurts your argument, not helps it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your view on User:Zeeyanketu regarding Boxoffice collection(domestic) of Bol Bachchan

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Ghajinidetails's talk page.
Message added 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am having an important discussion on Bol Bachchan domestic nett gross figures on User talk:zeeyanketu.If you wish,you can give your views there ---Ghajinidetails ^{talk to me} 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyways ,Thanx for your intervention ,Following a discussion years back Boxofficeindia have been used only just like Boxofficemojo for hollywood films So for one User:Ghajinidetails,it cannot be changed or modified,Moreover this user claimed himself to be 4 years old editor on his another User:Rajnikanth1 user page then ,why he is so unknown and confused and didnt know about this matter and yesterday he copied the format of my signature too which is not fair.Please give your suggestion about the matter. ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 08:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Zeeyanketu regarding Boxoffice collection(domestic) of Rowdy Rathore and Kahaani

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Ghajinidetails's talk page.
Message added 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am having an important discussion on Rowdy Rathore and Kahaani domestic nett gross figures on User talk:zeeyanketu.If you wish,you can give your views there ---Ghajinidetails ^{talk to me} 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

yeah thats exactly what i am thinking gajjinidetails create an ego against me and his message are like an order then i how can i tolerate this .I have no problem with anyone, I will wait for boxoffice india as usual and will add it .And yes,i wil ready for any kind of discussion. ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 13:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi Qwyrxian. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Aseem Trivedi

Hi. Aseem Trivedi is in news in India, because of his series of cartoons, which got politicians of India angry. Wikipedia Article on him is systematicaly being blanked , section by section by an IP number right now,(that is when I am typinc this). Can you do something? Thank you.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The person only did it once, I think. And there are other IP editors who are doing constructive things. So, the best solution is just to revert and ignore. If it becomes a regular problem, the issue can be reported to WP:RFPP, where you can request temporary page protection (so that only people with confirmed accounts can edit it). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Qwyrxian, i've seen you made an undo on external links of Imran Khan (singer). I added his official twitter, which is a verified account. Also i wanted to add other websites like other musicians did (for example Lady Gaga).

Before I do add them, I would want to know, why you removed it and will you remove these new links as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbymohamed (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL says that we should only link to one official site/account for an article, so long as the one linked has links to other, subsidiary sites. So, it turns out, I made a mistake. Usually, the person's main site (here, [12]) has a link to their twitter account. So, adding the twitter was acceptable; I'll self revert. For other musicians, you need to check the person's main site; if that site has a link to the Twitter account, then the WP article should not also link to the twitter. The basic idea is that we're not here to provide a link to every site/social media presence the person has. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is true. I got your point. And indeed im not promoting his other networks, but giving a clear vision to his fans and clients, where they can find him on official accounts. Cause i noticed alot of people created fake accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbymohamed (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi dear, I was just wondering, as you probably noticed, I've been updating the Imran Khan (singer) page. The content has been outdated and I've made some major changes to his biography and re-paragraphed it. Is it allowed to do a lot changes in a short wile? Or do I have to wait for some OK's from your side? Also i requested a official photograph of the singer from his management to add it to his wikipedia. How do I put this in the license section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbymohamed (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The changes were mostly good. Only two problems that I noticed on a quick perusal. First, while we would often consider a person's self-bio to be fairly reliable, Khan's contains statements that make if very clear to me that the source is not reliable. Specifically, he says, "Amplifier quickly became the most played song on all major TV stations and radio stations across the globe, and had hit the 2 million view mark on Youtube in only 1 week." The first sentence of that is simply wrong--it is absolutely not true that every major station across the world was playing him; the second statement is possible, but 2 million views in 2 weeks is a lot, and so I'd like some independent evidence of that. Given how outrageous the first statement is, we need to be very careful about accepting the rest of the site. Second, his official site now has Twitter and Facebook linked, right on the main page, so we are no longer allowed to link to them in our article. Again, the idea is that if by visiting the main official website the other social media is linked, then WP doesn't also link to it. And those allmusic and lastfm things...I don't even know why we have the templates, because they clearly do not meet WP:EL. Simply put, we want to link to as little as possible, not as much as possible.

But beyond that, the article appears to be very much improved. Thank you for the work! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i saw you were in the middle of my changes to revert again. The biography part, i just broke up and added titles and more references. I did not add new or more text, just changed the last line.

About the external links. All other musicians, i checked their websites and their wikipedia's. They have the same working way. I did not invented something new. Then all links on other musician pages should beremoved as well? ---Shebby Mohamed (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If the other articles have them, they should be removed. We often use the phrase WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a short way of saying that there's a lot of bad or at least imperfect articles on Wikipedia, so we can't use other articles as evidence of the way things should be. So yes, the other articles should have their external links trimmed to meet WP:EL, which is the site-wide guidelines for external links. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do check the other musicians out their, especially americans. I will remove then the social networks. Please if something is not clear, do not undo at once. Put it in the talk as im putting a lot of effort collecting information and placing it. Explain me here what I can do else to make it complete. Thanks in advance. ---Shebby Mohamed (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the way Wikipedia works--one person edits, another person removes part, another person changes it. It's just the nature of working on an open, collaborative wiki. Of course, we shouldn't remove work without a reason, but I try to always give one in edit summaries (which you can see by viewing the history of the article). If a change is controversial, or if 2 people don't agree, then, yes, we use the talk page, but there's no requirement that changes go to the talk page first, especially the first time someone edits and reverts. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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) 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wandering Son editor ban

Upon some closer investigation, I believe that the IP user you banned for a second time, 50.128.198.195 (talk · contribs), is also operating under a ranged IP, previously edited under 137.52.209.97 (talk · contribs) and 137.52.209.129 (talk · contribs), which are registered with Nova University. I believe it is clear the user is now editing using the university's network to bypass the ban based on a stark similarity between their edits (except for the removal of Japanese text, which I believe is due to the university computers not having Japanese text rendering software installed).--十八 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if that's correct, Neither of the 137* IPs have been used since May 2012. We don't block accounts or IPs unless there s recent disruption from them. However, if another IP comes back to that article, it wil be worth considering semi-protection rather than trying to hit every new IP. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

137.52.209.129 edited the article just today after you banned 50.128.198.195. But yes, I've already asked for page protection for a second time.--十八 23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have clicked the wrong link twice. I've semi-protected the article for a week. When it happens again (as I'm expecting it will), I'll sp for longer if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your revert in Steeler Nation dispute

Hi Qwyrxian. I saw your edit comment in the Steeler Nation dispute. Thanks. I'm sorry about that, but Dmitrij D. Czarkoff got involved in the dispute as a volunteer, then clearly withdrew from it five days ago, and now is coming back and adding huge clutter to a discussion that has been going on for two weeks. We were finally close to getting to a decision and then Dmitrij posts all those unnecessary Draft sections, which put the whole debate back into chaos. It was the last thing that was needed, particularly from someone who already resigned long ago because he said he admitted he wasn't knowlegeable enough to help. Can you please remove all those Draft sections, or at least reduce them down so they don't clutter up the page. I don't know if there's a way to just hide them, so someone can just click on it if they want to see it, but that would be great. Thanks! :) --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Involved editors can't make comfortably and neutrally make decisions about what should or shouldn't stay in the discussion. Keeping it there doesn't hurt anything. In any event, as a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove other people's comments except in special circumstances which don't apply here. So please don't do that again. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I already said I was sorry for removing them so there was no need to tell me not to do it again. I wrote you; you didn't write me. Second, they were not other people's comments that I removed. Dmitrij simply copy and pasted prior comments from the involved editors into all the new Draft sections he created. And, on top of that, repeatedly typed in the 7 sources for under each editor's Draft section, taking up lots of even more unnecessary space. (Someone has since removed all those repetitious sources.) So it was just a huge duplication of comments that were already there, which caused tens of thousands of unneeded characters being added to an already extremely lengthy discussion. That's why I was writing to ask you if you could at least hide all this extra text, so that if someone wanted to see them they could just click and "unhide" link or something like that. His actions by adding all this content severely hampered the process of the discussion, one which he resigned from five days ago. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)