User talk:Qwyrxian

Talk page archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

Ysfan

Would you mind asking Ysfan if he would remove his TP restrcition from me? I would like to explain my actions and intent going forward. Perhaps we can get him to work colloboratlivly if he understands.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

For the moment, I don't think it would help. Ysfan is clearly not in a happy place right now, and I don't think s/he is ready to hear what you have to say in good faith. I think we should first wait and see what happens after her/his block expires. If the behavior from there is even and acceptable, then it might indicate that s/he is ready to listen. In the meanwhile, keep editing as normal. While where you edit is up to you, I personally recommend not going out of your way to find pages that Ysfan is editing on. Plenty of other editors should be watching Ysfan now, so there's no real worry of a major problem erupting (that can't be quickly contained). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

All righty then.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  07:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been following the conversation and I think it's best I just avoid this altogether. My presence will only provke him further. I'm taking the article off my watchlist and hope you will keep an eye on things.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in articles Janjua and Baid

Hello Qwyrxian ,
I d like to draw your attention to the issue of seeming contradiction of British Colonial sources such as Ibbetson being considered reliable sources or not .
For instance two articles in question being Janjua and Baid . On the Janjua article page your edit 9 February 2013 you Undid revision 537272837 by 93.97.120.135 (talk) please see the talk page: do not add sources that do not meet WP:RS deleting citations of Ibbetson and District Gazetteer of British Colonial sources . On the Talk:Janjua page in your edit 9 February 2013 states ‎Removed addition: no, they don't meet RS you elaborate "You can't just assert that they are reliable. If they are reprints of the 19th century British colonial writings, they're 90% or higher to not meet WP:RS. Almost none of those authors actually did the fact-checking and editorial judging required by our standards."'
However please refer to your edit on my talk page section Proposed deletion of Baid which you initiated . And on the article Baid you proposed for deletion. Several sources were added including 4 British Colonial including Ibbetson by other experienced editors .In your edit thereafter of 6 April 2012 you repaired a spelling mistake for a quote from Ibbetson stating (Undid revision 485685075 by 117.198.231.52 (talk) we need to use the spelling in the sources. Based on these addition of reliable sources in Dec 2011. 7th Dec 2011 prod was removed with the addition of sources , which included Ibbetson and 2 other British Colonial sources .
Please elaborate why according to you as an admin is Denzil Ibbetson a valid source for one article and not for another .Thank you for your response .Intothefire (talk) 12:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll say that on Baid, I didn't review the sources at all. In fact, I didn't even remember the article at all until you brought it up. When I reverted in April 2012, I just reverted because there was a change a quote, which is basically always wrong.

However, having said that, while I don't understand why Ibbetson would be reliable, Sitush is generally much better at sources than me, so I guess I have to trust him. I'll self-revert on Janjua. We do, however, need the full publication information, if you'd be willing to add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trawling through the diffs above and if you check out ITF's history then you'll probably understand why (aside from the obvious personal issue of which you are aware). Ibbetson is not reliable, period. In fact, I seem to recall that he self-admitted this: he was extremely frustrated with the inaccuracies of the Raj census system etc upon which he based his works. It is worth remembering that he was among the group of people - Rose, Risley, Thurston etc - who were officially tasked with writing surveys about stuff they knew little about and who were reliant on a very small number of native speakers to act as translators etc. They're probably a bit better than Tod - they did try to do things systematically, for example, even though they chose scientific racism as their method - but reliable they are not.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've just reviewed Baid because it intrigued me. The point made in that discussion was that some people clearly recognised a community or communities that used the name, even though there were apparent disagreements regarding who they are/were. As I said in the PROD discussion on ITF's page, I've added some sources. It remains a mess, and it is clear that there are far more uses for the term than were initially noted,, but there may be a chance to salvage this if you are willing to do some digging. In fact, there is the potential for two or three articles here, plus a disambiguation page. The article was worded accordingly. My only regret is not having gone back to do any significant to it in the intervening period. I'd hope that the Raj sources could be removed, and I regret that ITF never bothered to do anything further with it even when I'd dug up some modern sources that could be further mined for info. Sorry, ITF, but this is just another instance of you cherry-picking old stuff to make an out-of-context point.

I've reverted at Janjua: that addition was merely an excuse for puffery, of little substance and without any obvious support from modern sources.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , my query to you as an admin remains unanswered , its important ,because this contradiction of British Colonial sources is rife on articles in Wikipedia . Surely the contradictory validity or non-validity extended by you an admin to a source cannot be justified on the grounds of discretion of "a " particular editor in this case someone you trust Sitush , because the contradictory usage is being applied by Sitush himself .
In the , Baid article you improved the spelling on an Ibbetson sourced content inserted by Sitush on 7th December 2011 which itself was immediately preceded by your own edit on the same day 7th Deember 2011 proposing deletion .Conversely in the Janjua article you deleted the Ibbetson source do not add sources that do not meet WP:RS) .After my above comment to you then you self reverted and put back Ibbetson and another British Colonial source . In Sitush's post above he states "Ibbetson is not valid , period" although he has himself added Ibbetson in the Baid article .In the Janjua article Sitush has now ( I am presuming that 2.219.218.79 IS Sitush) reverted your reintroduction of Ibbetson , in the edit summary he states "Undid revision 537377769 by Qwyrxian (talk) no need to self-rv: the removal was fine" . Surely These are severe contradictions , I do not believe Wikepedia extends such discretionary privilege to any admin or editor for contradictory actions concerning terming a source valid or in valid , because then it is patently unfair on other editors . There are just too many such instances including in articles where you are also intervening/editing . Thanks for your response .Intothefire (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

See, the thing is, no one source is universally good or bad. In my experience, the colonial sources are generally bad on caste subjects. Thus, I generally remove them; I don't have access to the books themselves, and thus err on the side of caution by removing info of dubious quality. Sitush, on the other hand, generally has access to the actual books, and thus can look into them in more detail. I generally trust his evaluations. However, in this specific case, the solution is easy: I've removed 2 sources on Baid, and tagged a third as of dubious reliability. Since the latter focuses on a subject directly within the person's field of expertise (medical issues), it may be of value. However, if someone else wants to remove it, they may. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ibbetson is not Rose, although Rose did write some stuff using elements of Ibbetson's researches. As with William Crooke, Rose tended more to the folklore aspect of ethnology than to scientific racism.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , for a source to be considered suitable /unsuitable it needs to abide by Wikipedia policy over and above an editor, group of editors - discretion . More importantly an admin's unflinching and tacit trust on an editor or editors discretionary (and contradictory treatment) usage of sources severely undermines not only neutrality but balance . An admin is expected to bring an even observance and an advanced level of watchfulness .A singular watchfulness in one instance and general nonchalance in an other is bad . The principal I have highlighted here with regard to Janjua/Baid therefore is both related to and transcends the two articles or one Ibbetson/Crooke . Further according to you as an admin and your stated views with regard to British Colonial sources ....you have tagged Crooke as dubious as well as let the reference remain . Therefore please clarify -Is Crooke a valid (though dubious) source for other articles ? Is Crooke is a valid (but dubious ) source on medical opinions ? , does Crooke fall in the category of a bad Colonial source ? or this is a grey area ? . I am taking reference here to the reference provided by Sitush which you have let remain . Since Sitush provided this naturally he finds this a valid source. Crooke is used on various other articles as well . Intothefire (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if Crooke is reliable in this instance. I'd have to actually be able to read the source. Please don't expect that we can make an absolute rule that says "Colonial sources are always/never acceptable". As I said above, in this case, Crooke is speaking upon his specific area of specialty--medicine. He's not talking about caste/varna status, he's not pontificating and Indian history, and he's not declaring one group warriors and the other group peasants. He's making a claim about the medicine practiced by the Baid. It may be that he is reliable for this claim. I'm not sure. If you think he's not reliable in this instance, remove the source and information linked to it. If you're not sure, and want further input, ask at WP:RSN (I'd appreciate a courtesy notification). Contrary to popular belief, I don't know everything; nor, in fact, could I, since decisions are made by consensus. In fact, for that matter, if you think the Ibbetson is reliable on Janjua, take the matter to WP:RSN. You're welcome to get a consensus to show me that I'm wrong.

One final note, though: I do trust some editors more than others. This is based on my experience working with those editors. But I also argue with Sitush. I think he's wrong about requiring self-identification for caste identity in BLPs for example; I disagreed so much I started two wide discussions about it. Even though consensus seems to support his version (mostly), I still think he's wrong. But if I see Sitush arguing with another editor about the quality of a source, my betting money is on Sitush, because as far as I know, his analyses are consistently held up at WP:RSN. As an analogy, if I'm unsure about copyright issues, I ask User:Moonriddengirl, and I implicitly trust her answer, because she's well known as the encyclopedia's number one expert on the matter. Is it unfair of me to trust her over some new editor who claims she doesn't understand copyright? No, it's good sense. I'd still listen to the other editor, and be willing to let them pursue dispute resolution (just as you or another editor is welcome to do wrt to either of thee articles), but absent compelling evidence to the contrary, odds are much more in Sitush's favor than most new editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Which editor or groups of editors you would trust more or support is entirely your prerogative , but if you practice inconsistency vis a vis actions with different editors as an admin is concerning . Which is exactly the point I started with , about the seeming contradiction of British Colonial sources such as Ibbetson being considered reliable sources in some articles and unreliable in others . Similar Colonial sources are used for example in article Kurmi where you have participated ,for instance .....surely you cannot be held responsible for the introduction of such sources by other experienced editors ....but such sources are freely used by some experienced editors with no objections raised and forceful objections raised as in the recent case of Janjua . It doesn't bode well . Intothefire (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you. In all honesty, on a very large number of the articles I edit, I look at or look for only a few things, handle specific types of disputes, etc. Only in special cases to I actually look at the exact details of all edits, sources, etc. If there are specific problems on Kurmi, raise the on the talk page, or even boldly start removing problematic sources. That particular article isn't even on my watchlist any more, though I do feel like it was in the past. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Iyengar#Sentence_removed.
Message added Hari7478 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Posted links to three sources in the article's talk page, and it could be easily understood by anyone, even by those without subject knowledge. It's short and well explained. Please analyze it. It won't take much time. Hari7478 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

AVI report and other issues

Qwyrxian, i looked at the AVI report by Hari7478. Had posted a message to Scottywong and Sitush on it; but deleted it since i did not want to make it tougher for the admin (i understand how tough it already is). All the same, the report and the reason given by Hari7478 is offensive. I also find his message to Scottywong misrepresenting the situation and saying offensive things upsetting. Am also surprised no one has taken Hari7478 to task for the reason he gave (ie., This AIV report was not filed with the intention of blocking the other user). Perhaps Hari7478 wanted to evade answering on the 4 issues or wanted me blocked before i cud file the arbitration. I would like to know does wiki have a policy against filing false reports of vandalism? Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

While AIV was the wrong place to report, the explanation on his talk cleared up the problem: it was acceptable for him to ask for those edit summaries to be removed--I can still see them, and they were personal attacks and wholly unacceptable. Hari should have asked an admin directly to remove the edit summaries, but WP is a weird place and it's not very obvious to know where to go to get something done, like having an edit summary suppressed. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Am not able to see the edit summary. Was it the one where i said, he did not reply on ANI page hence deleted? Not sure in what way it amounts to personal attacks? Please clarify. As such, not able to understand this allegation of me doing personal attacks. I thot it is something Hari7478 is resorting to coz he wanted to evade answering. Did not think "ignorant" and "meandering" amounts to personal attacks. As already said on my talk page, if i am ignorant about something, wud happily accept/say so (it wud be a matter of fact; not something to make an issue out of). Hence, going all around the topic without addressing specific issues is out of question (wud never contribute to an article proper if i cannot understand the subject/sources). I thot blogs and forums are places for prejudices (which anyone may have), not articles proper on wiki. I find Hari7478's comments on me (on his talk page) very offensive -- the kind that hits below the belt and misrepresents stuff so he can get away with misquoting. Especially when his, is the real vandalism (since he refused to answer on mediation, talk page, ANI; and yet kept putting/reverting his misquoted sentences on the page). Anyways, may i know if wiki has a policy against filing false reports of vandalism ? Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I swear you are tempting me to break the rules and block you myself. If you go into your preferences and enable email, I will email you the summary, but I will not repeat it on wiki. There is no doubt it violated WP:CIVIL, and I think most admins would say it broke WP:NPA. And calling someone a vandal, when they are not (see WP:VANDAL), is another personal attack. Hari isn't trying to make Wikipedia worse or spam (the definition of a vandal). Even if Hari is POV pushing, that's not vandalism. His comments about your edit summary are fully deserved. You probably would have been blocked for them if an admin had spotted them when you made them, but it was already 4 or so days later and you had been blocked for edit warring, so another block would just be punitive. And then, here, calling someone ignorant is not necessarily an attack, but it is certainly a violation of WP:CIVIL.

Seriously, if this is all bothering you so much, just walk away for awhile. Wiki is not worth being stressed over, unless your already an addict like me. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Figured out which edit summary finally. Also figured out it was the reason why BWilkins left the msg on my talk page. From my opinion, what i said was reality of the situation. As for vandalism, i was not making wikipedia worse or spam either, and yet had repeated reports of vandalism filed against me by Hari7478 (and so they were certainly false reports of vandalism). Anyways, since the 4 issues are now sorted on the Iyengar article, no point going back to old issues. I thank you for the assistance in cleaning up the article and look forward to your continued involvement. Thank you.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Geoliteka

hello! I am not sure this is the right place to write, but i could not find relevant pages sorry. Could you please kindly explain why you haevg removed links to GEOLITEKA (http://geoliteka.weebly.com/) - former Im Books from pages re. Tamar Injia, Ali and Nino - Literary Robbery! etc. Thank you in advance for your explanation. Irene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's guideline on external links is very strict. You can read the policy at WP:EL. In this case, the key is that nothing on that page, or on any of the linked pages that I could see, mention the Ali and Nino-Literary Robbery! book. If the book had a separate page on the Geoliteka site, and if that page contained unique information that for some reason we couldn't put in the article itself, then we might link to it. But we don't link to the publisher just because they are the publisher. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, Thank you for reference. I read policy, incorporated within the text my notes and I would appreciate further explanation on the topic:

1) citation from WP:EL policy: “Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. SORRY DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE, WILL BE HAPPY TO USE THEM ONLY OUTSIDE OF ARTICLE IN THE FUTURE. 2) citation from WP:EL policy: “Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy”. MY LINK DRIVES READER TO THE PLACE WHERE S/HE CAN ACTUALLY FIND THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!” (THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ONLY PLACE ON THE WEB WHERE IT IS AVAILABLE). THIS SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF WIKI POLICY (SEE QUOTING FROM WIKI POLICY IN QUOTATION MARKS): LINK “INCLUDES FURTHER RESEARCH THAT IS ACCURATE AND ON-TOPIC, INFORMATION THAT COULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE ARTICLE FOR REASONS SUCH AS .... AMOUNT OF DETAIL” 3) citation from WP:EL policy: “Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any”. SO FAR, http://geoliteka.weebly.com/index.html IS THE ONLY OFFICIAL WEBSITE ON THE SUBJECT – ROBBERY OF ROBAKIDZE’S WORK ‘SNAKE’S SKIN’ BY AUTHOR OF ‘ALI AND NINO’ (WHOEVER S/HE WAS). THIS IS THE A SINGLE VIRTUAL SPACE, WHERE READER CAN FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT BY READING THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!”. 4) citation from WP:EL policy: "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. I SATISFY BOTH REQUIREMENTS: 1) I AN AUTHOR/CREATOR OF ARTICLES “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!”, “TAMAR INJIA”, AND “SNAKE’S SKIN”. 2) THE LINKED WEBSITE WAS CREATED SOLELY FOR PROMOTING THE DISCOVERY OF PROF. INJIA. HOWEVER, OVER TIME OUR INTERESTS GOT WIDER AND WE ADDED OTHER TRANSLATED WORKD OF GEORGIAN WRITERS. STILL, WE ARE FOCUDING ON WORKS OD ROBAKIDZE AND SECOND EDITION OF THE BOOK “ALI AND NINO – LITERARY ROBBERY!” IS IN PROGRESS (PLEASE READ LAST PARA AT THIS PAGE: http://geoliteka.weebly.com/alinino---literary-robbery.html) THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR CLARIFICATIONS AND HELP. IRENE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comments help clarify that, in fact, this link can definitely not be used anywhere you have added it. The only legitimate place that a link of that type would be allowed would be if there were a Wikipedia article for Geoliteka. That "official page" thing is for companies, people, organizations, and the like. But there isn't even a page for the Ali and Nino book on your website! So it very much cannot be linked. Please do not re-add it. Furthermore, people should pretty much never add links to companies or organizations with which they have a conflict of interest. If you continue to attempt to add that link as you have been, I may have to request that your account be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. While i agree with Sitush on the possibilities of POV edits and cherry picking on genetics across articles on Indian castes, this secondary source [1] seems to give a short & clear summary of a "comparative study done with the results of two primary sources"(menitoned as source:7 in the talk page). It says "all individuals examined among Vadagalai ayangar brahmins were rhd positive while other populations showed a low frequency of the D allele. The similarity in the frequency of rhesus-d genes in india and pakistan can be attributed to the common history of the people." I'm sorry about re-posting it here, again. This seems to be a clear circumstance where the author/genealogist of the secondary source seems to arrived at a conclusion. But is there anything else that needs to be sorted out, regarding this specific source? Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, so what do you want to add? Something like "According to a genetic study conducted in Pakistan, members of the Vadagalai probably share a common ancestry with people living in Faisalabad, Pakistan"? That seems to be what the study says. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Something like this - "According to a genetic study, Vadagalai iyengars showed similarities in the frequencies of Rhesus genes with the people of Faislabad, Pakistan, probably sharing a common ancestry with them". Actually, it's a secondary source that analyzes two primary genetic studies(one of them conducted in India and the other in Pakistan). Also, i think the data regarding the details comes first and then the info' on the probable common ancestry follows(for a better understanding). Hari7478 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first thing we'd have to change is the statement, because what you (and I previously) wrote isn't actually true. We don't actually know from the study that the blood was a sample of residents of Faisalabad. All we know is that they had a thousand or so samples from the area. But unless we knew that those were randomized samples (which they very much appear not to be, since they're taken from blood donations, which is necessarily a skewed population), we would need to change it to say "with some of the residents of Faisalabad, Pakistan". Okay, now that that's established...what encyclopedic value does this information have? It tells us close to nothing definitive about either group. It doesn't tell us who started where, whether one is descended from the other or whether they shared a common ancestor, it doesn't tell us if that ancestry was in the last couple of decades or from ten thousand years ago. It seems to me to be trivial at best, and misleading at worst. Thus, I cannot see the value of this inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all humans share a common ancestry (as do all species - humans share a common ancestry with cabbages, for example). So something that just says two groups of people might have a common ancestry, without saying anything more about when that common ancestry might have been, actually says nothing at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, i agree. Anything that could be done about this? - [2] - I've posted a link to the exact page. As mentioned before, both Vadakalais(alternatively spelled as as vadahalai) & Thenkalais(mispelled as tengalai) are mentioned as Indo-Hittite(List of allele frequencies). According to the article Indo-hittite is the same as Indo-European. There seems to be general explanation on the origins of all Indo-Hittite/Indo-Europeans. In case we can't come up with anything, is there a way i could refer this to someone(preferably an admin with knowledge on such studies)? Hari7478 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To Qwyrxian

Qwyrxian, not sure if can talk here. Just hoping to put 2 things for folks in the right perspective:

(1) Rhesus factor:
RHD gene has several alleles on it and the region continues to be explored. If there is one or two copies of RHD gene intact, then it results in D positive (D+) phenotype. Deletion of entire RHD causes D negative (D-) phenotype. Since D- is common in Europeans and rarely, if ever, found in Asians, hence it is dubbed European D negative phenotype. There are also partial D alleles and weak D alleles; often again associated with Europeans but also found in China and other places. As more populations get tested in future, we'll know better.

D+ antigen is very common across all populations; as you can see here; and across all clines (or 'ethnic groups' if you may so call them), for example: this one. Linking D+ to only Europeans or to European origin is a very wild speculative job with absolutely no scientific basis. If all Vadakalai samples (in the said paper) and some Faisalabad residents are D+ it cannot mean they are European / Aryan / Indo-Aryan. On the contrary D+ is commonest in Asians and Blacks. Some feel as a population gets closer to Caucasian, RHD gene deletion (i.e., D- phenotype) may get frequent (see for example this). However, since alleles on RHD keep getting explored, we never know what may be found tomorrow. Even the european partial D alleles were found/described as recently as 2002.

2) Indo-Hittite:
This pertains to linguistics but will try. It is generally thought the Indo-Hittite (aka Indo-Anatolian) branch broke off from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE). What constitutes PIE is complex. If you can note from this chart the Hittite branch is not associated with the Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Instead, the Hittite branch separated out much earlier. There are no clues yet if Indo-Hittite can be associated, if at all, with the Indo-Aryan.

In the said book above, Cavalli-Sforza also mentions the Indo-Anatolian branch got extinct. But not many things in linguistics are resolved yet. The book explores the origin of Indo-Europeans and Anatolia is suggested by many linguists . Anyways, Cavalli-Sforza accepts the hypotheses of Renfrew (p.265); i.e., agricultural expansion resulted in diffusion of 3 linguistic families (from Anatolia region) -- Dravidian towards Pakistan and India, Indo-European towards Europe, and Afro-Asiatic towards North Africa and Arabia.

Now a lot depends on when did Indo-Anatolian branch off. IMO it also remains open to investigation where did proto-dravidian linguistic group originate or come from. Until these things are resolved, am seriously not sure how Indo-hittite can be linked to whatever is considered 'Aryan'; especially since Hittite is not associated with Indo-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit. Since Hittite broke off earlier, it could mean something else too (IMO there are links to altaic shamanism / shramanism and whatever is considered zoarashtrian, agamic and non-vedic; but that's only a wild personal speculation though). Also, from a linguistic POV, what is considered only Aryan but not Dravidian can get contentious.

However, i leave this to the admin to discuss and decide. I can only say, since these issues are not resolved yet, it is not right to make conclusions as yet.

Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Msg

Hi Qwyrxian,

Found a theory by S.S Mishra linking Indo-Hittite to Middle-Indo-Aryan (MIA). Mishra proposes Sanskrit is older than Hittite. Additionally, Mishra's work (edited by Bryant and Patton) proposes India as the original home of Indo-Aryans, with an outbound theory (of Indo-Aryans going to Anatolia). Not sure if any of Mishra's theories are acceptable to linguists. At least for now the reverse of Mishra's theory, i.e., movement from Anatolia region into India is supported by genetic evidence.

Then again, if Indo-Hittie is linked to Middle-Indo-Aryan (prakrits), it leads to contentious issues. It is questionable why Indo-Hittie is not linked to Old Indo-Aryan (OIA). Could it mean a situation (war like or otherwise), where 'native' speakers of other languages were absorbed into the Indo-Aryan fold by the OIA (?) and/or their 'intermingling' gave rise to MIA? Then again, MIA is associated with Jain religion (and agamic religions are not explored properly yet). So possibilities are galore.

Kindly note, am not a linguist and am wholly ignorant about the subject. Just mentioned what I found (in the book), and my doubts -- I cud be entirely wrong in my understanding though.

Anyways, since linguistic theories (including the dravidian origin conundrum) are not resolved yet, I'd say it is hasty to link any group with a tag (Aryan or otherwise) just bcoz they belong to a particular 'caste' in present time. Maybe a good idea to skip mentioning such tags on wiki articles. However, the admin is in a better position to decide based on other possible evidence. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Don't tell me, tell the talk page of the article. Sitush (he's the one editing as an IP, becuase he's not using his normal computer) is doing much more of the content work right now, plus Hari should have the chance to chime in, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'd say better to have Sitush and someone knowledgeable in linguistics chiming in. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

The description on Indo-Hittite varies across sources, hence linking one study to another and arriving at a conclusion is WP:SYNTH. We have to just stick to what that source says about these nomenclatures. Here are a few examples.

• The people of Turkey are linguistically Altaic. The Turkish culture & the language were established in Anatoila(present day's Turkey) by the Gokturks who emigrated from Central Asia(Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). However, genetic studies indicate that Turkish people(people of Turkey) are rather "Turkized Anatolians" with hardly any "Central Asian/Turkic/altaic" admixture. The altaic classification is just linguistic, while ethnically "the people of Turkey" are of the European diaspora, sharing a common ancestry with their neighbours, Greeks. So, the Turkish(of Turkey) and the Turkic(central asian - turkmen,Uzbeks,etc) are not ethnically related to another.
  
• Today's African-Americans in the U.S. are English speakers and most of them don't speak another tongue. Ethnically, they're the farthest from Caucasians(U.S. census classification of whites).
  

All i'm trying to say is, the two(genetics & linguistics) are not always related, unless the source explicitly mentions "ethno-linguistics". According to that source, the authors equate Indo-Hittite to Indo-European. Under the "list of allele frequencies" most(but not all) southern-indian brahmins are mentioned under Indo-Hittite. This could possibly mean their ethnic origins(while their ancestors' tongue during the migratory periods could have been different, like the examples mentioned above, as we all are aware of the popularly held belief ab't brahmins.) - Again, some pages are not available for viewing, hence I may not know what exactly has been discussed by the authors. Because the terminology "Indo-European" has been used in different fields(ethnic origins alone, linguistics alone, ethno-linguistics). Whatever it may be, we simply stick to the source contents and not come up with our own conclusions. So we need to involve a few admins with subject knowledge as it's possible we could be totally wrong. However, arriving at a conclusion by merging/blending different sources or using "own research" can't be the way. Whatever it may be, i'm resting myself from these discussions for some time and focussing on the other sections of the article, since most of them are unsourced, and on the other artices.

About the studies on rhesus antigens - you may be right, but when the authors of a secondary source arrive at a conclusion(although that specific study on rhesus antigens need not necessarily indicate a thing regarding their ancestries, like you said) any user may still include it based on "reliable verifiabilty"(a secondary source that combines two studies, and its authors arriving at a conclusion). However, i'm not including it in the article considering the reasons mentioned by Qwyrxian. I guess we can put it to rest, as i won't be bringing it up again. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said to Mayasutra, please discuss this on the article's talk page. While I know that all three of you (Hari7478, Mayasutra, and Sitush) are watching this page, it's better to have the discussion there so that it's stored in the article's talk page archives for future reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Am consulting a linguist and will be able to add more on this. Please advise how to move this discussion to Iyengar talk page? To Hari7478 -- as regards rhesus antigen, i am right -- go ask any geneticist. What Reddy et al said in the paper and what i said is exactly the same. But you do not seem to understand. It is apparent you just do not know the basics and hence do not understand the paper. Anyways, You cannot use the paper to claim Vadakalai Iyengars are Indo-Aryans, Europeans or whatever else you please, or those who migrated from North India or different from Thenkalais or any other blah blah, which the paper neither says, conveys nor implies. Period. You are able to get away on wiki because Reddy et al is not going to sue you for misquoting them on wiki (coz many ppl pass off BS here). --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Hari7478, Indo-European does not automatically mean Indo-Aryan. The term Indo-Aryan refers to a very specific linguistic group. Whether Indo-Hittie can be associated with Indo-Aryan is the key point. AFAIK it is currently under investigation. As regards Cavalli-Sforza, you are completely off the track. If you cannot make sense of his book, i have a suggestion for you. Think of days when humans roamed jungles and lived in caves. The first brahmin was a non-brahmin. Hope that helps. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "India".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 10:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC) No doubt you are watching, but to make sure, [3] and [4]. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Thank you! A DRN volunteer has already closed the request. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC) RSS Does this makes any sense, this guy is asking me to disprove his bogus source. He is being illogical, how do you expect someone to resolve a dispute with this person?--sarvajna (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC) His claim makes sense to me. The group is described in a book about terrorism, in a chapter about religious terrorism, and is described as using violence to advance a religious agenda, including the training of paramilitaries. You don't need a sentence that explicitly says "RSS was a terrorist organization". There probably isn't one, because otherwise the author would have to say a thousand times in one book, "Group A is a terrorist organization....Group C is a terrorist organization." While it would be great if we could see the whole page, even the snippet you can see seems pretty clear to me. Why do you think it's a bogus source? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC) So are you saying that we need not look at what is written, just a mention of the Organization under the topic religious terrorism is enough?. The snippet view says violent defenders of Hindu culture go back to 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotism Organization) began training paramilitaries. RSS being a paramilitary organization is already menioned in the article and there is no dispute about it. The dispute is about RSS being a terrorist oraganization, should we not look at sources that explicitly say that RSS is spreadin terror?--sarvajna (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) The source does say that it's a terrorist organization. Are you telling me that if you bought a book called Soup recipes, and page five had a recipe for minestrone, but the recipe didn't have the word "soup" in it, that you would think that the recipe is for a dinner dish that isn't soup? Yes, we need to be true to sources, but I don't see how you can read that to mean anything other than them falling under the books broader definition. Are there other examples from that book of groups being mentioned, with labels of violence, but we know that the author explicitly means for them not to be considered terrorists? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I wrote this on the article's talk page and writing the same here,Although the probability is low but what if the book has praised RSS, what if the book says that RSS is a victim of malicious propoganda in those other pages that we are not able to see. We would need more than one sentence to decide on what has been written about RSS in that book. --sarvajna (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC) This is what the book says on page number 75, no where it says that RSS is indulging in terrorism Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95). There have been Hindu grous and political parties that have sought to have Hindu practices(Hindutva) incorporated into national law since a large majority of the polpulation of India is Hindu. The bharatiya janata party that promotes Hindu practices has become the largest religious and nationalist movement in the world (Juergensmeyer 1996:6). While the party moderated its use of Hindu themes in the election campaign of 1998, it did not offer any real assurances to the religious minorities of increased tolerance(Chandra 1999:65-6). They feel that the members of the minority religions should be reabsorbed into the Hindu community (Greenwat 2001: 91). These efforts correspond to the attempts by Muslims to have the Sharia as the basis of national law or of groups in the United states to have Christian principles more directly incoreporated into... I can send you the screen shots if you want.--sarvajna (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC) hey I am really fed up of that person, can you just intervene as an admin. First he gets some source, I tell him that the Onus is on him to prove that its the correct source he says that I should open a DRN. He claims that he has the copy/access of the book when I ask him to quote the sentences he refuses and asks me to open a DRN if I have any issues. He says that because the book is about terrorism and the chapter is about religious terrorism he refuses to consider the text of the book and says facts are facts(whatever it means). the guy defies all the logic. Can you just check the talk page once?--sarvajna (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar Thank you for your efforts in the Iyengar article. Best wishes. Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks! Thank you Qwyrxian for working with me on the DJ Earworm page. I have made a large edit with all of the things I said (finding citations, removing content that could not be verified). I hope to get to the rest of the page in the coming days before the block is lifted. Two quick things. After I made my large edit, I noticed the lock image was not appearing on the page. I don't think I touched anything regarding the block template, but if you have a sec to just take a look, that would be much appreciated. Also, as I have suspected that the IPs who previously made the edits warranting the block is using sock puppetry and multiple IPs, if they happen to come back, do you have any suggestions of how I can go about handeling the situation? Again thank you for your help. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC) I'll check the lock symbol after this. On the IP, did they ever edit with a named account? If not, there's not much point in investigating sock puppetry, because there wouldn't be much we could learn. In fact, that wouldn't even necessarily be sock puppetry, because most people's IPs change without their control; for some people, it changes almost every time they connect to the internet. However, is this problem spread across more than one page? If it's just a few pages, using semi-protection is the easiest route. If it's a lot of pages, we can consider range blocks, but that's quite difficult and rarely effective anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC) To my knowledge, based on what I've seen from this page, the edits have all been IP. I am not sure if they are editing other pages, but then again, it would be hard to know if they are using many different IP addresses. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC) RSN Just wanted to add that the book quoted is named Global Terrorism. The chapter is titled “Religious Justification for Terrorism." On page 75 it states: “Extreme views have also appeared within Hinduism, and religiously motivated violence has resulted. Violent defenders of the Hindu culture go back to the 1920s when the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS - National Patriotia Organization) began training paramilitaries. An RSS member assasinated Mohandas Gandhi because he was willing to compromise with non Hindus on the new state of India(Juergensmeyer 2000:95).” I do not want to edit the page because as you have stated, it is improper to do so. Can you please update the name of the book to actual title(Global Terrorism)? Also, your time is sincerely appreciated (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)) Thanks for letting me know; I got confused about which of the two books this was coming from. I've fixed it now and added the second quotation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC) You have quoted the same thing twice, first the whole paragraph and second just the first few lines of the paragraph.--sarvajna (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC) page protection Hi Qwyrxian ,Why dont you protect Murder 3 yourself.---zeeyanketu talk to me 06:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Because I have been editing the page, and while most of my edits have been to remove vandalism, some of them were issues of editorial judgment, such as removing the external links and the "review" that I don't believe meets WP:RS. As such, it could be argued that I'm WP:INVOLVED (if you're not familiar with that policy, it says, in short, that admins need to avoid any appearance of using administrative tools to win a content dispute). I figured that there's no particular harm in letting another admin take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC) 1M4U by kucingbiru13 Dear Mr Qwyrxian, thank you for your advice and help. I really appreciate it. I'm new to wikipedia and still trying to learn the ropes. I will try my best to contribute to wikipedia. Thank You again. God Bless.Kucingbiru13 (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The Hunger Pains Hey, Qwyrxian. I saw your little scuffle with that user in The Hunger Pains. I've read the article, and I agree with you: It IS too excessive, but that doesn't mean that you need to delete THAT much of it. I mean, 100~200 words maybe, but that's just going too far. Besides, cut him some slack. He doesn't even have an account, and it must have taken him a while to create that article. Think about it. Thanks,The Triple M (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The problem is, he's the only one who can cut it down. I haven't read the book (or the original it's modeled on), so there's absolutely no way for me to do it myself. It is unfortunate, but it's better to have no plot than one like that. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Hmm. Good point. It IS unorganized, and it does need some fixing. If he's too stubborn...well, I don't know. Did you try talking to him on his talk page?The Triple M (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. By any chance, have you read the book? Because the IP's just put it up again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Suggestions for a New Article Hey, Qwyrxian. I'm going to try and write a new article here in Wikipedia, but I can't come up with a good topic that hasn't been done yet. You're an admin, so do you have any suggestions? Thanks,The Triple M (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Personally, I suggest not even thinking about new topics. Wikipedia has over 4 millions articles, and basically all of them need improvement. Every "normal" topic has already been covered, and most of the ones that haven't (that are legitimate topics for articles) are so obscure that they need highly specialized knowledge. In my 7 years here, with my very large number of edits, while I have completely overhauled a number of articles, in some cases rewriting everything from the ground up, I have only actually "created" two completely new articles (Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Women's Image Network Awards). If you are looking for something to do, try taking a look at Category:Wikipedia backlog. If you feel like working on referencing, for example, there's over 230,000 articles tagged as having no references, with hundreds of thousands more needing additional ones. If you want to improve the quality of writing, you could try Category:Wikipedia articles requiring style editing. Or if you just want to work on simple mechanical things, there's categories for articles needing grammar or technical cleanup. But if you really want to look for topics that someone thinks should be on Wikipedia but aren't, there's a user submitted list at WP:Requested articles. Do note that just because a reader thought that an article should exist, doesn't necessarily mean it should (for notability reasons, usually, or else because and article might be better treated as a section of another article). Sorry that I sound like kind-of a downer. But this is, in fact, my sincerely held belief: the Wikipedia is far far more in need of improving than expanding. And new users are always better off improving, because there are so many technical details and rules associated with getting a new article to stick, that it can become pretty discouraging to try. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC) DRN Sorry, it was my fault. I thought that you lost interest in article after you didn't comment in the discussion. Cossde (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It's still on my watchlist; I just didn't know about the DRN. Not sure if I could have actually helped, but I would have tried. I really wish we could resolve the name problem, because it's just so irritating, not just on that article, but on all the other Sri Lankan colleges... Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I am open for suggestions, in fact I'm taking those in CT Cooper's assessment on Royal College, Colombo. But it seems that as soon as I start editing the sockpuppet attacks start. I feel this may have less to do with the schools and more to do with me. Cossde (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I was notified by a bot. According to the DRN "rules", I don't think people can post their comments until a DRN volunteer has approved the case. In this instance, as in many, the case was turned down by such a volunteer. I find it to be a very messy system and in all cases where I have been involved it has produced no result of any great wort, basically just throwing it all back to the talk pages.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Weird, I don't remember a bot notice; maybe I did get one and thought it was for one of the other DRN's I'm involved in. Basically, the system is: Someone opens the request, listing other editors who are involved. Those other editors must post an initial statement (in effect, there needs to be some evidence that there's actually people willing to try to resolve the problem). They aren't supposed to argue in those posts, but just post their position or willingness to continue. If a DRN volunteer thinks she/he can help, and the dispute fits the DRN criteria, then it gets opened and the discussion can continue. As for the actual dispute in question...first, Cossde, it's great that you asked for an article assessment and are responding to those concerns. Even if the name problem can't be sorted out, at least the rest of the article will improve. Thanks for dong those edits. As for the names...I think that, first of all, all of those articles need to be indefinitely semi-protected. The next time an IP editor decides to make a change, someone (I'll do it if I see it) should request the indefinite protection at WP:RFPP. At that point...I think it's up to obi2canibe if he wants to pursue it further. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) User: PRASATIS This user keeps editing Mukkulathor & other related pages without any references. Can you have a look on him & make him understand how to work on Wikipedia ? Rajkris (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I've left a note and done some tidying. (I might be home next week, btw, and then will have a watchlist rather than being a perpetual stalker!).--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (that's Sitush, in case you didn't know, Rajkris). I actually had both editing windows open to start a note, but then had to go away to handle some chores; thanks for handling that. What Sitush has done is basically the same thing I would have done, except that I wouldn't have left the caste-sanctions warning at the same time as the first handwrittten message. But the fact that there is a personal, direct message clearly written by a human is one of the keys. A lot of people just ignore templated messages or bot messages, because we're kind-of trained in real life to ignore those types of automated communications. So in a case like this, I think it's really important, Rajkris, to at least once attempt to communicate with the person in your own words--politely, calmly, etc. Don't get me wrong--I use a lot of templated warnings. But in a case like this, where I don't think the user is intentionally being disruptive and instead just doesn't understand or know our rules, I think it's almost always worth taking at least one shot on trying to directly communicate with them. If they ignore it (or don't see it--some people literally don't pay attention to the orange "You've got new messages" notice), then sometimes a block will eventually be needed to try to force communication. But I think that trying at least once is a good plan. I'll watchlist the user's talk page, and two of the article pages, but if you see something that needs administrative attention and I don't notice, feel free to drop me another note (either of you). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I don't mind if you remove the caste notice & tweak my words to reflect that. It does seem a bit contradictory to apologise for templates and then, erm, template. But it is late here and I am off to bed.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Nah, it's just a different approach--it's not wrong, just different. And I must fully admit that if you were to track my own actions, I jump around all the time in terms of when I template and when I don't. Here, I figured that with several of us watching, if it took an extra round of "Okay, we tried to explain nicely, now I have to template you" before we did the "Okay, next time it's a block", there wouldn't be much harm. But it's totally a judgment call. Get some rest. And hope you can go home soon! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Ok.Rajkris (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) user:Intoronto1125 possible IP sock Qwyrxian, I have come to you as the original blocking admin, and also because I'm not entirely sure how to deal with a suspected IP sock as in the few sock investigations I have read the ips never seem to be confirmed or not (also it might meet the duck test). The Ip in question is user:76.64.228.218. This edit on a talk page about "field hockey" or "hockey" on a Pan American Games page is one of the reasons that Intoronto was indef blocked (see a Dec 15 2012 discussion here). Additionally, the IP's edits are on the same topics as Intoronto (specifically focused on Canada, (ice) hockey and multievent sporting competitions). Finally, the IP has reached 3 reversions, in three hours, on Ice hockey again over the issue of whether it should be referred to as hockey or ice hockey: One, Two and Three (I gave a warning, but only after the three above had been done) and the IP geolocates to Toronto. If notifying you as an admin isn't the correct step, please let me know what is. Ravendrop 07:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My edit summaries Hi there, I will be more specific in my edit summaries from now on. I guess I've been doing a high volume of editing recently and my summaries haven't been as descriptive as they need to be. Thanks for the message - duly noted. Regards, TheSuave 16:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Shankysupercool I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#Shankysupercool which concerns a sockpuppet investigation you recently participated in. Your participation there is welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Sumanch Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Sumanch's talk page. Message added 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. NPOV on an article and unfair treatment due to IP address Hi [Qwyrxian], Regarding the page Murder of Travis Alexander; the page states "murder" as a fact despite an ongoing trail that is trying to determine the circumstances surrounding the death. The accused admits killing the victim but maintains it was self defence. Since manslaughter is a probable outcome of the case; it is not NPOV to state "murder" as a fact at this time. On the talk page we have been discussing this matter and the general consensus was up in the air but more were in favour of "death of..." than "murder of...". However, one user BabbaQ disagrees and has constantly been unable to support his position with any arguments besides saying that it should remain as "murder of.." because of a previous consensus. He then contacted an Admin requesting that the page be semi-protected due to "IP addresses editing against consensus". The admin protected the page and I feel that this is unfair as it is just because I do not have a user account, as there is not an ongoing risk of vandalism by other ip addresses. The protection was wholly against me. I cannot see how having "murder of.." stated as a fact, and then going on to say that Jodi did kill him (which she admits doing) doesn't lead to the reader making the obvious conclusion that she murdered him. But this is not yet a fact as the trial is ongoing and Jodi maintains a position of self defence. Surely this is even a violation of "Biography of living person." Anyway, I don't see why BabbaQ's position is favoured just because he has an account. I have posted this on the Admin noticeboard aswell, would just like to know your opinion also as you seemed very fair and level-headed when we interacted before! Thanks, 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC) You dont need to POV-push anymore. A good compromize has been made in Killing of.. Hope you can find some peace now as it seems to be such a huge deal.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC) As BabbaQ mentioned above, the other Admins also saw that we should not write the article presuming a particular outcome and stating it as current fact; so the whole thing has been resolved! Thanks anyway! 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, the admins saw that either Death of.. suggested by the IP nor Murder of.. was correct but Killing of.. which I agree on. Good decision. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My apologies, at the moment I don't have the interest/time to get involved with another dispute on a topic I've never heard of. But I'm glad that there was a solution. One note, though, to the IP and BabbaQ: admins don't decide content. They don't get to look at a dispute and say, "Well, we're choosing Side A because it's better." Admins are just editors who can do a few extra things like protect pages and block users. Generally, try to solve problems through dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Clarification needed regarding a minor difference of opinion in interpreting a few sources -- Iyengar article In the main article the IP(Sitush) has included a line under common origins - "all three of them(Nathamuni, Ramanuja & Nammalvar) are tamils", for which he has provided a citation(pg 65, 80, 84 of the source). However, pages 65 & 84 do not say anything about them being tamils, while pg.80 is not available for viewing. See here:[5]. However i argued that it may not be the case, and provided these two sources. See here:[6]. According to this source "Nathamuni belonged to a domiciled North Indian fmaily of the Chola country". According to the second source [7] "there were affiliations between south indian shaivism and vaishnavism and the forms of these two sects are practiced in Kashmir and other parts of North. Saints and scholars like Tirumular & Nathamuni belonged to the North". Hence, considering these two sources i removed that line and left a note in the talk page. However he said something like i was misquoting it and "if he is from the tamil region, it means he's tamil". I don't agree to it. First of all, i don't know where his source mentions them all to be tamils. Secondly my first source says "Nathamuni belonged to a domiciled north indian family of the chola country", which means he had north indian origins but his family was domiciled in the region. However, "Tamils" would refer to people who have ethnic origins in Tamil Nadu. According to my second source, Nathamuni is North Indian. Please analyze them and leave a note here, or in the article's talk page(under the heading "Provided other sources in the place: same info+ additional data with sources"). Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I give up.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Hari, first of all, your argument seems to be bollocks to me (can I borrow that word for a second, Sitush?). Someone who lived in Tamil Nadu isn't a Tamil? Sure, if someone moves there, but if one is born there...but even if you're possibly correct, you're providing no evidence that you're correct, you're merely opening up another theory. So we have Sitush's source that say "A is true" and we have your sources that say "Well, if we look at this in a certain way, then B is true"...then we write "A is true". And if I look at it even more carefully (what you wrote, not the sources)...are you trying to make an argument that because 1 specific person is or isn't from an area that you can then draw a conclusion about a whole group? Again, that's just not acceptable. You seem to be hellbent on finding sources and picking out any possibility to push a certain view. I have to admit I have no idea what viewpoint it is you're trying to push, because I have not gone through all of these sources and articles and don't even know what the big deal is. More importantly, don't try to resolve a topic dispute by bringing in one specific other editor. Resolve it through dispute resolution. In this case, if it's just the 2 of you arguing, use WP:3O...although the matter may be too complex for 3O, so an RfC may be better. Or maybe, just maybe, you need to step away from this subject. Again, even though I don't know exactly what it is, you seem to be absolutely insistent on trying to prove a specific idea based upon extraordinary leaps in logic, through using the slimmest possible evidence to suggest that some other interpretation besides the obvious one may be try. In other words, I believe that you already think you know the TRUTH and that your job is to make Wikipedia represent that. That simply will not lead to success here. You have an advantage in that very very few Wikipedia editors care about the subject you're editing in...heck most of them don't even begin to understand why these things matter...but inevitably, Truth-seekers always run into problems here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Qwyrxian, i'm not a truth seeker here. It seems you didn't look into the sources. I'm reposting the links/evidence - [8], [9]. Sitush's source does not say a thing about their birth origins. Diff of his response - [10]. He believes he's right as the three vaishnava saints were born in the region & had lived there. But my sources explicitly mention that one of them(Nathamuni) was born into a north indian family. I'm not drawing a conclusion about the whole community. It's not about the community in general. But he cannot mention the three of them to be tamils when his source says no such thing. It's just his interpretation that seems to be the problem. The contents of my source are not even contradictory to the one that he's citing. That being the case, i'd like to point out an example for your understanding - Let us consider the hypothetical situation of "a Punjabi family residing in Tamil Nadu for 100 years". Usually, the youngest/fifth generation members are likely to have no knowledge of the Punjabi language, and tamil's likely to be their default first language. However, under the vague field "mother tongue"(in their birth certificate), either they mention Punjabi as their language or the government expects them to self-identify as punjabis, regardless of their knowledge of Punjabi and/or what they speak at home. Examples like "If you are born in the U.S., you're a natural born citizen, worthy of the demonym AMERICAN" are not applicable everywhere. A person of Indian origin born in "Southampton, Long Island, NY, US" is likely to be called a Hamptonite, New Yorker & an American. However, similar clauses are not used in the Indian gov't census. His talk page response "he was born in the tamil region" cannot be a valid arguement(the political setup in the 11th century was different though). Although this example is an exact copy of the one i posted in the IP user's(sitush's) talk page, i don't intend to spam it but i'm re-posting it here for your understanding of the scenario. I'll be seeking DR and this isn't going to be my only complaint as there are other minor issues that need to be resolved. Thanks you. Hari7478 (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I'm only somewhat understanding the discussion (especially, I'm not understanding why it matters so much)...but would it solve the problem if we said, instead, "all three of them(Nathamuni, Ramanuja & Nammalvar) were from Tamil Nadu"? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) intoronto1125 I don't know the right way to go about it, but I believe that user intoronto1125, who was indefinately blocked by you, is using an ip address 76.64.228.218. Might be a coincidence, sorry if I am wasting your time.18abruce (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Nope, not a coincidence; after looking carefully through the contributions history, there is no doubt that that IP is Intoronto1125. If another new IP or user pops up again on the same topic that you think is/may be Intoronto1125, feel free to let me know again; there's too many articles for me to add to my watchlist, so I'll have to rely upon involved editors to alert me if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Will do, we have very similar interests, and he can't seem to help himself from being combative on the same issues over and over again.18abruce (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Makarandg Qwyrxian and TheSuave, thanks for correcting my errors on the subject. As u may have noticed i am a new user to wiki and currently not very much acquaint with it conventions. so may have caused the disturbance like u have mentioned. About t matter i want to say that i (though Indian resident) not trying to malign the presidents repo. but the impartial info and praise given is the matter of my concern (the same source has other point of view also) her foreign visits after reading the stuff u have mentioned, its not that much sensational as per wiki norms but the fact that the 'telegram and its copies r burnt' is something unusual and should be cited without criticism ( i am not sure will it be applicable as per ur norms or not...?) about a dead man's clemency I understand that the firstly inserted criticism part was not fully sourced but after ur changes i had only mentioned that she had given clemency to a that guy with the sufficient reliable source and without any partial point of view ( i think it is necessary to mention that) apart from the subject i like to mention that i am very much impressed by the efficiency and effectiveness shown to better wiki shown by people like u.. Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) other matters U have given sources to the controversy line but when the data from same source is added to the wiki pages its been removed (her son and husbands liaison along with other details which are in presidential election where it has nothing to do with it) Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) the INC countered ... Shekhawat... illegally acquiring land why insert details of Bhairon singh shekhawat in pratibha patil-shekhatwat bio Makarandg (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Here's the thing. You keep trying to add that information to the "Controveries" section. But the sources you are providing don't say that these things are controversies. At all. For example, it seems obvious to me that Patil should be using more money for foreign travel...that it should be a matter of praise, not controversy. It's a clear demonstration that India is now a world power. So unless you can produce a source saying that this is actually a controversy, it can't go into the controversy section. Then, the next question is, if it's not verifiably a controversy, can it just be added as a fact somewhere else in the article? For that, my feeling is no, because it just seems WP:UNDUE—that is, it doesn't seem importat enough to her overall biography. Basically the same thing holds true for the clemency issue. See, when you think about what to put into a Wikipedia biography, what you want to ask yourself, usually, is not "What's being talked about in the news right now?" but instead, "What will be important to historians who look back on this person ten years later?" Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I am totally agree with u on her foreign trip issue( i've mentioned earlier also) But not satisfied with ur position on her clemency decision. (her decision to give 35 clemency is historic. isn't it imp to understand her preparedness to give a decision like that from historic point of view. If your stand is like u r writing her biography and that u will only mention the stuff from her point of view and not the the third party outside without getting personal point of view. Isn't it imp to mention She also told a Muslim congregation that the veil was introduced to "protect their women from Mughal invaders", a comment she later retracted. or The dour and conservative Mrs Patil, who according to one newspaper won a beauty contest in 1962, has been described, among other things, by critics as a "national embarrassment" and a person who is "not exactly the most overwhelming, accomplished or charismatic" candidate from HOPE U'LL UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF VIEW Makarandg (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Starting from the end, the fact that her political opponents say negative things about her is not worth including in her bio...that's just politics. The veil comment is just a random, throwaway comment, certainly not something of lasting importance. Just because something was in a newspaper does not mean it has lasting encyclopedic value. The one point that could have merit is the clemency issue, given that this is a record. I'll raise the matter at the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Both Master of Computer Applications and Master of Science in Information Tecnology are Different Yes Both Master of Computer Applications and Master of Science in Information Tecnology are Different because Master of Science in Information Tecnology is a 2 year masters degree and Master of Computer Applications is 3 years masters degree. Proof--- http://www.ibmr.org/pune-university-mca.htm (Master of Computer Applications) http://www.daiict.ac.in/daiict/admissions/msit.html (Master of Science in Information Technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsajjadhs (talk • contribs) 14:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Mdsajjadhs 14:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, a careful look has me agreeing. But please be patient. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Request Hi. Can you kindly review Palar Blast article created by me; whether the incident is notable, for a separate article? Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC) PLEASE DELETE MY USER PAGE PLEASE DELETE MY USER PAGE Deleted7Username 16:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC) It's blank now, your name has been changed to Deleted7username. If you want to prevent yourself from logging in, just change the password to random letters. We can't actually "delete" your account, but at this point, your name is gone as are your messages there. Please note that if you are willing to work with other editors, you're welcome to stay. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Earth100 He's continuing to make unsourced edits. He made this change ([11]), acknowledging on his talk page that he couldn't even read the source that he was allegedly fixing the information from. And then I thought all was well, since he apologized and reverted his edit. Then about an hour after making the reversion, he made this edit. That page had other issues as well, as an IP editor had come in and added a bunch of unsourced information which I also removed. At this point, I think it's clear that he is not going to heed advice to slow down in editing or get a mentor / ask question before making edits. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. 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) 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Talk back Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Wasifwasif's talk page. Message added 10:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Wasif (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Sue Perkins Actually revisions do not make the article worse at all, and its not flowery language at all its correct terminology to use. As an ongoing article about a living person using such terminology as continues and long standing are wholly appropriate. If you actually look at the article it lacks any real citations, in the main body, uses very poor structure. On the friend and creative partner issue go and have a look online and you will find that those terms very appropriate to use and are used frequently to describe the nature of a professional and personal relationship. There is also every need to use correct terminology like Re-Commissioned instead of just merely highlighting a series has a third or fourth series. Use of such words actually make the article a better more professional read. Another example "Periodically" instead of "on occasions" those changes actually structure the article better and make it flow for the reader, as it was very disjointed. Also you stated about Neutral point of view issue, if you can demonstrate that for example a statement such as "Perkins successful television series." With for instance viewing figures from BARB or critically acclaimed reviews and offset it with other reviews of a more negative nature. The NPOV issues are wholly addressed in line with the policy. Thank you for your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchhousefantatic‎ (talk • contribs) I'll deal with this tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Great Job great job dude Makarandg (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Page protection Hi, The article Madurai_Nayak_Dynasty has got vandalized left and right. Sentences provided verbatim from sources under references are changed. The vandalism comes from two or three people, who IMO are posting under different IPs from different places. The most frequent alteration they make is to change the word Balija into Kamma everywhere in the article (including sources). But the recent vandalism from User:Narayana Samy Nayak takes the cake -- he deleted entire sections from the article. The vandalism has come frequently from the following IPs: 101.62.33.222, 101.63.193.131, 183.90.103.163, 183.90.103.147, 183.90.103.132, 183.90.103.182, 65.255.37.213, 2.50.19.198 and 125.17.145.49. This has been going on for far too long, at least since the past 2 years. Kindly view the edit logs. It is difficult to track changes each time. Even the dates and years are changed without providing references. This page definitely needs to be protected so that only editors who previously worked on the article can edit it. Please enforce page protection. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra Hi, I set right vandalized portions of the article as best as i could. Some of it is from 2011. Please advice which one is better -- page protection or sockpupper report for these User IDs / IP addresses: Sridhargu, Narayana Samy Nayak, 220.255.1.168, 220.255.1.167, 220.255.1.168, 220.255.1.99, 220.255.1.130, 220.255.1.123, 220.255.1.159, 220.255.1.120, 24.115.209.166, 218.186.16.251, 122.174.115.183, 122.166.11.107, 122.164.160.241, 122.174.1.99, 122.174.10.251, 122.166.11.107, 101.62.33.222, 101.63.193.131, 183.90.103.163, 183.90.103.147, 183.90.103.132, 183.90.103.182, 65.255.37.213, 2.50.19.198 and 125.17.145.49. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra Haven't we discussed before that you may not call good faith edits vandalism, and that doing so is grounds for a block as a personal attack? An easy way that I can tell that this isn't vandalism is because I can't see much difference between what you've done and what the other editors did. Yes, I know it's different, but neither is obviously better. I trust you're acting in good faith, so I assume you're reverting for the best, but vandalism is almost always obvious. An SPI won't do anything, because checkusers never connect IP addresses and named accounts for privacy reasons. You could ask for page protection, but you likely wouldn't get it because the problems aren't frequent enough, nor is it obvious that this isn't just a content dispute. The best thing is to keep monitoring the article (keep it on your watchlist), and when you see problems, fix them. While you're at it, you may want to go through the article and either tagging or removing unsourced information, as there appears to be quite a lot of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Re Qwyrxian, I suggest you take a look at the article's edit log just once before you pronounce. If you can't see a difference between my edits and what the spammers did, i suggest you look up the page (of each book) from which sentences have been provided in the References Section. And yeah, i understand NPA well, so no need to keep mentioning a block each time you get a chance (please its silly). Am speaking of frequent spam of this kind; and deletion of entire sections of this kind. These spammers wont discuss on talk page. They have even changed sentences (which i had provided) from books under the References Section like this How long and how frequent is considered "frequent enough" spam on wiki? The article was already well written but largely without references, before i worked on it. I only added some parts to the article (including dates or years of some rulers). I also provided references for preexisting content whereever i could. Currently am looking for good sources for the Iyengar article and not focussing on this article. If you are disputing neutrality and claiming puffery exists, then i suggest you please provide examples of it in the talk page so others can take a cue and work on the article based on what you say. Thanks.--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra Help! Yikes, this is pov pushing but the article is semi-protected and I can do nothing about it.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Got it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ta. I am dreading what my watchlist is going to look like!--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ANI thread The ANI thread is getting a bit long. Also, two editors who frequently support Msoamu have (along with him) launched what amounts to about half a dozen personal attacks on me across several talk pages over the past two days or so. Do you have any ideas how the ANI thread could be closed out and we can move on? Or about the behavior which I am currently facing? I'd like to say it doesn't bother me personally, but more than one of these attacks have accused me of supporting violent extremism (yes, deleting articles about topics they like equates to violent extremism) and comments like that could have real life ramifications should I ever be outed. I don't think any of it fits the criteria for an RfC though, as it hasn't reached that point I guess. Any advice would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC) The ANI will stay open until an admin decides that it's been long enough, or until a no one comments for 36 hours. You could theoretically call for it to be closed early, but I recommend against it as it likely won't help. However, you actually probably don't want it closed, because it's the best way to explore the personal attacks. There seems to me to be a reasonable chance for this to WP:BOOMERANG back on Msoamu, if you show that there's a problem. I recommend opening up a separate sub-thread (use level 3 headers) at the end of the current thread, and provide some diffs that show how you've been attacked. Try to keep it to a paragraph or two--massive walls of text rarely get much attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC) See, this is why asking for advice was good. I was originally planning to not get involved at all. You're absolutely sure making a three level header and posting some brief words about what I feel are personal attacks would help? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I think it may help, and likely won't cause any harm, if: You're brief. You state your concerns seriously but without malice (i.e., don't attack the other editors, simply raise the fact that you're personally feeling attacked). Pick only the best diffs. If one of them said you're irritating, or stubborn, or biased, or something like that, don't list it. Instead, focus on, for example, where they compare you or your edits to violent extremism. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I tried my best to fight against my long-winded nature. I hope it's brief enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Qwyrxian, I'd like to point out that I did a summary of what I saw from the dispute, both on my talk page, and copied into the ANI thread. That may or may not help you, but it's kinda buried in amongst the walls of text. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC) A Barnstar For You The Admin's Barnstar You're outstanding! (And I don't mean doing something silly in the rain.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Why thank you! And to what do I owe this great pleasure? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC) You work your buns off. You make good decisions. You don't get frazzled. You are thoughtful. You will post me millions of dollars. You handle difficult cases. You are patient. You are polite. Don't bother to re-read the above. Just let it sink in. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC) "You will post me millions of dollars" - have you moved to Nigeria? BTW, I agree with Anna, as is usually the case. No need for a bribe, although I wouldn't refuse one: it would take the meaning of the Wikipedia cabal to another level.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Fordham University entry Thanks so much for what you are trying to do. I don't have the time to dedicate to the article, or any others for that matter, but there has been a lot of work on this page over the years, and at least two serious attempts to improve the article class status. The current round of edits is reverting much of that work, and it is largely due to one editor. I defer to your Wiki status and experience as, while I have been here a number of years now, I am not proficient in the methods and protocols for dealing with problematic editors. The repeated arbitrary reversals seemingly based on opinon by a particular editor seems worthy of sanction, but I am not sure how that would proceed. Shoreranger (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Are you getting my emails? Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, I think I've responded to both. Basically, I just haven't summoned up the effort required to pull together all of the diffs needed to make a case. But I expect I should get to it w/in the next three days or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Taejo Hi! Regarding the family of Taejo, the mess you recently edited/removed was supposed to be the ancestry chart. I don't really know how it became the jumbled mess that it came our, but I swear it's not intentional. I made an earlier one in Princess Noguk's page and another one in Empress Myeongseong's page because the "Family" section was a horrible cluttered mess; and they were based on the Ancestry of Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. Please do reply soon, so I can bring up on the solution on how to fix it... Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, you made an earlier revert of the family section that was earlier than my 18 February edit, and frankly I'm a bit upset about that because that edit was an up-to-date revision and mainly based on Taejo's Korean wiki-page. Heran et Sang'gres (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)