User talk:Qwyrxian

GOALWAY

Look, I appreciate the concern, but I know how to do my job and I don't anyone here on Wiki to ruin my life's work.

Alright fine, it it's to keep me from getting blocked on wiki. You know what, I don't even care anymore. I mean as long as all Jordanian footballer profiles here on Wiki don't miss any accurate info or don't have inaccurate info, then I'm fine with it.

User conduct

Qwyrxian, please take a look at this comment by User:Cybermud. Cybermud was topic-banned in November 2011 and again in February 2012 precisely because of this kind of incivility and hateful rhetoric. He breached his second topic ban so that you had to extend it. He continues to denigrate ("POV pushing", "feminist task force", "self-righteous ideologues", "gender warriors" etc.) the handful of editors who've been working to improve the article in question. He goes so far as to compare them to „Klansmen”. This is clearly beyond the pale. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment was on a user talk page. It's polemic, but it's not, in my opinion, blatants offensive. He's not comparing editors to Klansmen, he's using a metaphor to point out what he believes is terrible POV slanting, implying that those improving the article are clearly feminists with an agenda of undermining the "true story" of men's rights. The comment does make it clear that he shouldn't even consider editing any articles within the topic, but it's not, in and of itself, sufficient to warrant any action (in my opinion). You'll certainly get no support at ANI for action to be taken against an editor for a comment in user talk space. However, should he repeat such an action, even out of mainspace, we could consider asking for another topic ban, if his actions are causing disruption. I'm going to live a polite warning on his talk page, but I don't see grounds for more than that. You could, conceivably, go to WP:ANI, but I strongly recommend against it, because the likelihood of action is so low that it actually hurts the possibility of action later should it become necessary, and also escalates the problem if Cybermud is going to try to behave in mainspace. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't angling for sanctions. I wanted someone to remind Cybermud to take it easy on the rhetoric. Your reminder was well-phrased and polite and did the job. Thank you and keep up the truly great work. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel

Hey, man, I noticed that you blocked the article, but the "Broadcast team" section became a mess. Can you please put the following under the "Broadcast team" section title? It should work. {| class="wikitable sortable" align="left center" style="width:65%;" Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it will get the page unlocked, I'll stand down about how to list Vince McMahon. It's not worth punishing others (who aren't involved in any of this) over a minor detail. Vjmlhds 04:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The McMahon issue isn't the problem, it's a symptom. You all need to learn how to edit together collaboratively. If you can come to a consensus on McMahn, use the {{edit protected}} template (without the tlx) to ask for an admin to make the edit for you. In the meantime, you all can discuss the other changes you think should be made as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

First of all Voyt13 have contacted me before he was blocked and he "didnt brought me here" since I was interested in this particular article longe before that. But anyway, thats not important. Blocking indefinitely is wrong idea in my opinion, dont see much reasons for it, as I have rad all that "investigation" thing, but some may see them.. I dont think there is any "problem for me" as u described it, its very easy to exclude somebody from the discussion claiming reasons u stated. I noticed that kind of behavior a lot in Wikipedia, so I just have to get use to it cos it is impossible to change it as far as my experience is. Anyway, I would like u to read my posts on the discussion page and answer me according to the facts I put forward. Thanks--FitJock87 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered your questions there. I am not involved in the content dispute itself--I'm acting in an administrative capacity on that article, so I can't respond to the actual details of what does or doesn't go in the article. I can tell you that, as far as I can see, most of those points have already been discussed before, so you should look at the prior discussions—just because you weren't here for them doesn't mean people have to repeat themselves because you've been canvassed to join the article discussion. Also, I can tell you that you're discussing the point from the wrong perspective: you're trying to argue about what's true, instead of arguing about weight and verifiability. You cannot argue that we have to include something because the science says X. You have to argue that we have to include X because a large number of sources include the opinion and it is a relevant part of the story. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen - edit war

Hi Qwyrxian, just writing back to you about the 3RR issue I had in relation to the Patricia Petersen page. Apologies if I did it incorrectly, rather new to the world of editing. I had read about the 3RR as previous editors of this page had been warned also (likely the same editor on a different IP) and that is how I found out about the process.

Just to follow up about some of the comments. I have tried to direct the IP editor who keeps reverting the page with the unverifiable material back to the talk page where I have a few times added issues I have had with the details added. On two occasions in the field for the reasons for my edit I have referred back to the talk page. Note that I have previously edited the page myself as an IP editor - but being that this was occurring on a shared computer for the most part I decided it would be better if I got an account. The other IP editor has no interest in engaging on the talk page, which is why I took the 3RR step. If you read the edit history and the talk page there are ongoing issues with self-interest edits on this page - and I don't want to see Wikipedia being used as an advertisement for Patricia Petersen, but rather just stating the facts (the splitting the Labor vote comment has no source and is merely opinion, and not an opinion stated by any political pundits).

Again, apologies if I have gone about these things the wrong way, but I was just tired of the continual reverts and the lack of engagement by the other editor on the talk page. Apollo Credence (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem; the real reason for declining is that we always have to warn people before blocking for 3RR, and that person essentially hadn't seen the warning. But, the result was actually better for the article; since the IP editor could easily keep hopping IPs (either unintentionally or on purpose), a block wouldn't have actually stopped them. Instead, semi-protecting the article stops the IP entirely, no matter how many times they hop. If the user returns to edit the article in the same way after the 1 week expires, let me know here and I'll take another look. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Kayastha

I should know this by now but, well, I don't. You've undone a revision that itself had the summary "Undid revision 523555463 ..." Is there any way to see the revision number of each contribution? I find occasionally that someone undoes an old edit of mine but, given my editing style, it can take me ages to find the thing. Of course (!?), they're usually wrong but I do like to check the sequence of events because I am not perfect etc.

And on the subject of editing style, a recent RfA candidate got trashed - among other things - with accusations of count-stacking, ie: making a lot of small edits to boost their edit count. I found that odd. I can see that in principle the system might be manipulated in such a way but (a) after a few thousand edits, the number is generally irrelevant and (b) I happen to think that my own micro-approach provides people with a better understanding of my rationale (& I assume that the same applied to the RfA canddiate). I'm currently having to micro-manage Sarekoppa Bangarappa precisely because the previous editor there did not do so - sorting that out is no big deal to me, but to read that this type of behaviour somehow makes one "less worthy" was a shocker. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

On the revert, that number is the number in the diff. So, for example, look at the URL for JonathanSammy's diff: [1]. The automatically generated edit summary of my revert of him says "Undid revision 524098465", which is the same number in the url after "diff=". Personally, I don't know why that is the information added; it is concise, which makes it good for an edit summary, but it isn't so easy to locate. You can scan somewhat quickly for them if you just mouseover the "diff" links in the history and watch the URL at the bottom of your browser.

On the RFA...I certainly wouldn't oppose on those grounds, unless I had reason to believe it was done intentionally. However, since I, like most voters (although I don't actually participate in RFA votes, but pretend that I did) have some sort of arbitrary "minimum number of edits", I would weigh the type of edits when seeing if they met my standard. In the same way, I used to measure "automated" edits differently as well, since it's not quite the same to do 10,000 Huggle edits as it is to do 10,000 manual edits—it's still work, it still shows judgment, but it's not quite the same. As for editing behaviors, I edit pretty much the same way you do, specifically so that I can leave more edit summaries and theoretically parts of my work could be reverted while leaving the rest. I also find it easier to edit sections rather than whole articles anyway, so it naturally tends to add more. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bashir

Every article that is pretty much cited under his profile is just like the Fox News article. I am sorry that it does not support your point of view. Any published media article that is cited will have some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trj1088 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it has "some bias"--the article isn't a news article. It is explicitly called an opinion article--look at the URL itself. That means it does not meet WP:RS. Like all news media, Fox carries both "factual" articles and "opinion" articles, and per WP:RS, opinion articles are basically never reliable sources, and especially not for negative claims about living people. My only "POV" is that I insist that the article follow Wikipedia principles, which your addition does not. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it. So bigotry is only accepted if it benefits your point of view. classy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trj1088 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, information is acceptable only if it is verified by a reliable source. If you don't like that, there are thousands of other websites you can contribute to. But Wikipedia relies upon verification, and it relies upon only recounting things that RS find important enough to comment on. Please note that beyond following Wikipedia's policies, I have absolutely no POV--I barely even know who Bashir is, and would have never heard of him if I hadn't seen the WP article in question. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Statehood movement in Puerto Rico

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jadeja

Could you check out recent stuff at Jadeja when you have a moment. I'm at 3RR of a sort (reverted the person three times, although not concerning the same issue). They initiated a thread at User talk:Sitush#Arbitrary heading 2. Oh, and both you and Boing! are due a t-shirt when I get round to it. I assume that you'll have no objections to being nominated. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now; your conversation on your talk page seems spot on, as usual. Let's hope the problem doesn't persist. And thank you for the offer on the t-shirt; I think I saw vaguely that they were doing something like that, but didn't read the details and forgot where it was. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my request for comment in the talk section of Sri Lanka

Can I remove disputed material? BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should wait a few more days, but then go ahead. If someone reverts you, try to take it back to talk and I'll ask them to do the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a shirt

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Talkback: List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

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

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

apologies for CSD's

Apologies for CSD's , I am trying to improve and also please note my intent is only to keep wiki clean Shrikanthv (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I have also rolled back some of articles which i had put for CSD , as i do understand this can de-motivate new contributers Shrikanthv (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Government forms

Are forms used by government bodies such as the IRS inherently notable? That is, can articles exist for each of those forms? - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not inherently notable, but some of them certainly have received enough coverage...in fact, I'd be worried that if you tried deleting them, people would find lots of "references"--mainly from online brokerages and the like "explaining" or giving advice on them. And even trying to do WP:BEFORE to figure out which are notable and which aren't might be a hassle. So...no, not inherently notable, but not necessarily the easiest problem to rectify. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That is what I am finding out! Plenty of sources where you can download the thing or that give you basic instructions re: how to fill it in (pretty much the same instructions that are printed on the form). I am concerned that we'll end up with an article for every form used by one particular government department, and that all they really do is little more that what I've just described. Not to worry, it will sort itself out: it seems that WP:N/N is unlikely to be of much use, however, since their terms of reference are incredibly narrow. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive protection

You've been used as a proxy to edit-war on Political activities of the Koch brothers. The fact is that we've made a lot of progress through the editing in the course of the RFC, and that while there had continued to be some talking, the matter is essentially over, and the fellow who made the request for protection came out on the losing side of the discussion; in fact there hadn't been an edit in twelve hours before you trashed all the work we did. Now you've undone it all, and we're likely to have the battle all over again because you've reopened the issue. I must ask you to undo this request, which was made in conspicuous bad faith. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I gather you didn't read my explanation on the article's talk page? Check back with me again after you have. But just to follow up on your concerns, I've now also read a good portion of the discussion, and I certainly do not see a consensus for inclusion. Equally as importantly, I don't actually see the discussion as having been finished at all--there are still ongoing discussions being had. Should you be able to obtain consensus, fine, do it, write it up, get a sizable number of the relevant editors to agree that there is consensus, and let me know (or use edit protected request if you don't think I'm neutral for some reason). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I did read your explanation; I do not have as negative a view of the progress of the RFC has you apparently do. At any rate the lack of further discussion of the text speaks for itself, not that I expect you to change your mind about protection. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Block expired

Hi, Qwyrxian. You protected the Decwar article last week after a SPA editor warred to keep his unsourced personal information in the article. As soon as the block expired, the editor returned and has again made the same problematic edits (Inserting his personal real name, his personal website, instructions on how to load and play his game, etc., without reliable sourcing and in violation of WP:PROMO). I've already explained the WP:RS and WP:PROMO policies to him, and I see you have also touched on some of that on his Talk page. My inclination is to revert his edit, but I thought I'd drop a note here first to see if you can suggest alternatives. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 3 days and reverted the edit for edit warring. In order to facilitate the process, though, could you please go open a section on the article's talk page explaining why you think the article should be in the current version? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I already had a section open, but I added to it just now, outlining some of the problems with his edit. I toyed with the idea of moving the website information he is trying to add to the article into an external link instead, but even there I doubt I could defend keeping it if someone strongly objected per WP:ELNO. I'll wait to see if the other editor has any ideas. Thanks again for your help. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

Hi Qwyrxian. When you have time, can you take a look at Carson Grant as far as puffery and self-authorship? Page is under contention, and I have tried to resolve it on the talk page and at WP:DISPUTE to no avail. The opposing editor vandalized the talk page to conceal the dispute so ERB123 would not be able to resolve it. My sense is the entire page is a candidate for deletion as the subject is not noteworthy and appears to have invented his own biography page. I cannot remove the puffery and self-authored content from the page any further, nor can I add relevant new information to the subject's page, as the opposing editor has threatened to have me banned if I attempt to further. Thanks for any help and for bringing fresh eyes to this page. I may be very wrong, and I am always interested in learning where I am, because that improves me as an aspiring editor.74.73.71.13 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs improvement, much of which will involve cutting. But there were two problems with your editing. First, you added unsourced negative information about a living person--the legal claim. Such a claim can never appear in Wikipedia without reliable sources; truth be told, we only very rarely include information on pending cases unless they have received widespread coverage, which I doubt this has. But without sources, it cannot be there. Second, the rationale you gave for removing material was incorrect--simply because the author (or their agent) wrote it doesn't mean that the info should automatically be removed. Instead, we have to refer to our policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and, here especially, WP:WEIGHT (which is part of NPOV). To be honest, I don't believe that the page should have be protected, given that there wasn't ongoing problems, but admins are allowed a bit of deference, especially on BLP articles.

I'm going to start editing the article, but I don't have much time to commit to it right now. I'm going to hack out the most egregious section on his history, and then get to the rest of it in a few days. Meanwhile, if you can find sources for the lawsuit, please post them on the article's talk page and we can figure out if they belong. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is awesome. Fair, measured, well-reasoned, and objective. The lawsuit sources should be available online shortly. I'll post them on the talk page as advised, although I understand and agree with the reasons for being cautious about adding it to the finished article until it has received wider coverage. I appreciate your agreeing with me the article definitely needs improvement, and that cutting would help. Qwyrxian, thank you!74.73.71.13 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen this thread and suffice it to say, I am furious - It is implied by this IP address that not only have I vandalised this article, I have done so deliberately in order to allow bias material to remain in this article. It is also implied that I made threats against this editor to have them banned. I request this IP show me all relevant diffs, in this thread, to back up the claims against me. I will be taking these implications to WP:AN/I as I believe they warrant a personal attack against me, for the simple fact that I reverted the additions to this article that the IP is clearly involved in at a personal level. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex, relax, please. Yes, it is correct that the IP should not have used the word "vandalized". The reason I didn't chastise her/him for it was because s/he had been treated unfairly as an IP--my guess is that had a registered editor made the same changes, they would not have been reverted—which is supported by the fact that no one has reverted my removal of the same info. So, yes, it was inappropriate to call you a vandal, and, should that be repeated, it might have repercussions. But people misuse the word vandal all the time; the first step is to explain why the word "vandal" when used in a Wikipedia context is a personal attack, not go off to ANI to file a complaint. So, 74, if you're still watching here, please understand that "vandal" is only used on Wikipedia when someone is intentionally making Wikipedia worse, like saying "I like to eat poop". Content disputes are never vandalism...even POV pushing, when that happens, isn't vandalism. So please don't use that term for other users acting in good faith, which I'm sure AlexJFox is. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Need help on amity page

Dear qwyrxian

I need your help. On the amity university page a lot of wrong things are being written about the founder of amity. He is a living person and such wrong allegations are really damaging. There are absolutely no warrants or notices against him. On the talk page I had uploaded a copy of original documents from the german authorities confirming this. I really need your help in this. Thank you. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing it now. I've explained on the article's talk page why. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. it is also mentioned in the first paragraph. It will be very kind if that can also be removed. 121.241.125.226 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Need Help Please

jack o'connell(actor) is half irish and half british but when i stated this fact some admin termed him as english and then immediately locked the page just to overrule the views and opinions of other when i requested an edit they denied it even though on the talk page i have given a verified link where jack himself said that "i am half-irish" so could you please step in and make his nationality as irish-british as it is correct,please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.248.51 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The admin is correct. In the lead of an article, we never mention (or, are never supposed to mention) ethnicity. We only list nationality. Whil O'Connell claimed to be half-Irish, we have no evidence that he holds Irish citizenship. As such, we cannot include it in the lead. You may want to see if we can add it, sourced, to the life and career section. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Carson Grant

Hi, thanks for the work you've done on this article, there was a bit of a dispute regarding it between me and an IP editor who seemed to assume I was deliberately leaving the unsourced content in when I reverted their defamatory edits (in fact I just don't work much in content, only counter vandalism) also, thanks for fixing the template, for some reason I couldn't see the small padlock when it was originally applied. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Doncram

This is ridiculous but I guess I can do no more due to 3RR. They're running roughshod over the thing and yet have admitted to not understanding the subject. I've tried to help with a primer at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes but there is too much impatience. This is exactly the sort of thing that has caused them so many problems with the NRHP stuff, numerous blocks and what has now become an entrenched position. Please, let's hope this is not going to become the new pet project, or at least not until they have some background. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to wait for the AfD to finish, but, fine, he wants to start now, we can. This shit matters. Let me be clear--we will use every procedure necessary to ensure that the article contains only reliably sourced, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant material. I recommend that no one else do so, but I will be invoking the BLP exemption to 3RR if necessary. I've just made some "dramatic" counter-moves on the article and talk page. I don't really like the lead right now (his choices for what do and don't count appear arbitrary), but I'm not ready to go after it aggressively, and I'd rather deal with the more fundamental issues first. As I've said in the AfD, if ARS people insist on keeping the list, fine, if they believe that [{WP:N]] trumps everything else for article existence. But nothing trumps WP:NPOV and WP:BLP for article content. So if we have to have a list of 2 or 3 groups, so be it.

As for doncram...I can hear my fingers pounding on my keyboard. This is the sign to myself that I'm agitated. I can't possibly think of anything I could say about doncram and his inclusion in this field, on which he seems to know less than me (and I don't know that much), that would not fall under WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the above until after I'd done this. Feel free to block me for 3RR. I'm out of it for a few hours, doing other stuff. God help us if Orlady or someone spots what is happening because there is some serious history there. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi

Hello! In responding at Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi, I noted the WP:Outing of a newly registered account. I did a quick removal of the IP where it was explicitly linked, but could use someone with a mop to clean it up in the history. It may be that it should be cleaned up further in the earlier comments too, I am unfamiliar with the best way to handle a mid-stream change. Can you take this? Thanks, (and Cheers!) --Tgeairn (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't that user explicilty state "I'm the person who used to be IP #"? If so, WP:OUTING no longer applies. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm getting cross-eyed staring at it, but I don't see the registered editor saying that they are the IP. I did remove a "I didn't mean to edit while logged out" statement that linked the two by then getting autosigned, so kinda gray. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From Whitetararaj! About Jubail!

See User:Qwyrxian, not only Jubail, Dammam is also having big lists of hotels. Why don't you delete that? I will make again about the tourism in Jubail!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitetararaj (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct solution is to remove the problems from Dammam, not add more policy violations to Jubail. Feel free to do the former (removal) whenever you like. There are over 4 million articles on Wikipedia, and over 90% of them need more work. We welcome the help—just follow the rules while you do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it was fast, I already trimmed out a bunch of the problems on Dammam, though I'm sure it could use more work. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that contributor's vandalism of your user page. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And what a random piece of vandalism that was.... Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Had I said Manchester, I might have left it alone. Here, you would be welcomed and the association would be a nice bit of puffery <g> - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Prem Chopra

Whatever information I had provided and you had reverted were all true. Proof - http://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/happy-birthday-prem-chopra/ and Prem Chopra's own website. I summarised from there only.Greatwords1 (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place which is looked into by everyone for information. I ahd picked up all information from these two sites and also provied references for Uma being name of wife of Chopra.Now by reverting - the whole lot of information has been rendered a waste. Greatwords1 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you got the information from those sources, then you can add it, but you need to do two things. First, you have to actually cite the source in the article. Information about how to do so can be found at HELP:Citations. If you have questions, I would be happy to help. Second, you must add the information neutrally. For example, you described a movie as a "box-office flop". You can't describe a movie that way. If it really didn't do well, you need a source to verify that and you need to use more neutral words (something like "which was not successful at the box-office" or "which had poor sales"). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Help WP

As an admin with experience on nationalist disputes in WP, I would like to request your attention to the article List of islands of Turkey, before an avoidable conflict flares up. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC) P.D. I asked protection for the article but I assume was not accepted...

Other than the TP of that article, this talk is also helpful to understand the issue, as user Macedonian presented a good role-model with their way of acting in this case. --E4024 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh—if more people starting thinking I can help with nationalist disputes, I'm going to be in for a world of hurt sooner or later :). Well, I've commented there; I'm trying to balance between offering a suggestion (looking for a compromise), and still staying uninvolved so that I can act as an admin if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tau Epsilon Phi

Hi Qwyrxian. User:86.147.247.205 has been adding inappropriate content to Tau Epsilon Phi. This started shortly after I made some minor edits to the Legal section. First, 86 changed the last sentence of the Legal section into a very detailed, separate paragraph. They also added unneeded content to the second sentence of the section. I reverted those changes and explained why in both my edit comments and on the article's talk page, but 86 quickly added the content back anyway. 86 also added this lengthy, non-encylopedic content to the History section, which I discovered was entirely copy and pasted (verbatim) from this TEP fraternity page; a clear editing and copyright violation. I haven't done any more reverts, so all the inappropriate content from 86 is still in the article. Instead, I will leave it in your hands. Btw, thank you taking the initiative and doing such a good job of creating the Legal section. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I've reverted. There really is no issue here--that was a clear, unambiguous copyright violation, which cannot stand no matter what. I've warned the user; if they keep up the problem, I'll either ask for them to be blocked or for the page to be protected. Protecting would stop you and any other anonymous users as well, but would be necessary if 86 changes IPs (intentionally or unintentionally). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) But, actually, you warned the wrong editor. It was 86.147.247.205 who added the copy and paste/copyrighted content,[2] not 82.132.242.34. And you didn't remove that copy/pasted content; it's still in the article. ;) Also, with regard to the last sentence you had written in the Legal section, which 86 turned into a lengthy, unnecessary separate paragraph, 86's version is still in the article. Originally, it was simply your version: "In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections.". That was perfect; concise and addressing all the key points. Now, it is: "In May 2011, the set­tle­ment approved by the United States Bank­ruptcy Court provided for the dis­missal of all claims against George Hasenberg (Executive Director), all Direc­tors and all Offi­cers of the Tau Epsi­lon Phi Fra­ter­nity, Inc. It also lent itself to the dis­missal of the Chap­ter 7 Bank­ruptcy Case and the sched­ul­ing of elec­tions of new offi­cers and direc­tors pur­suant to a Plan to be pro­vided by the Receiver in the New York Action. The Set­tling Par­ties have expressed sat­is­fac­tion with the set­tle­ment, thank each other for the coop­er­a­tive spirit of the set­tle­ment, and look for­ward to the future of the Fra­ter­nity.". As you can see, the original version is much better. The changed/current version is very poorly written and contains totally unnecessary content. The Legal section should go back to the way it was prior to 86 changing any of it. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; I didn't see that there were two different 8*** IP addresses editign in a row. I've gone back to an earlier version. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. The multiple 8's made it confusing. What 82 actually did was change some very good wording to some very odd wording, such as adding the "and look forward to practice each day 'friendship', 'chivalry' and 'service'" content. On the talk page, 82 also inappropriately advocated to "paste the settlement agreement" into the article.[3] These edits by 82 and 86 indicate that they do not understand some basic and important guidelines of editing. Hopefully you can advise them and suggest that they discuss any more changes to the Legal section on the talk page first. This way, we can prevent any further disputes on the great content you created. It would be really good if you could read the various comments that were added to the article's talk page over the past couple hours, then add your thoughts. I'm sure that your words would surely be respected as you are a very experienced editor and administrator. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet in Tau Epsilon Phi?

Qwyrxian, I believe there's strong evidence that we have a sockpuppet in Tau Epsilon Phi. I saw this edit to the article from 86.130.29.94 a few hours ago, and then this comment from User:Theneutralfactor after 86's edit was reverted. Both edits refer to the exact same, specific issue: the "rescinded" content they want added to the Legal section. One edit uses this term: "but was then later rescinded". The other one uses this term: "and later rescinded the claims". As Theneutralfactor, they have been threatening in the past hour or so to add this content to the Legal section that could potentially cause tempers to flare again on the talk page. I've asked them kindly to please wait for others to give their input. But if the two users are in fact the same person, then they would not only be participating on the talk page with two different accounts, but also editing the article using two different accounts; and doing so without acknowledging they are the same person. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)