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

Apologies

Sorry, I should have notified you of the mention in the Kolkata IP/De ANI thread. Daft thing is, I have deliberately not notified you of a mention elsewhere (unrelated) - it seems that I can't do right for doing wrong at the moment! - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem; for me, at least, seeing it pop up on the notification was fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review this, which refers to a comment that you made on AfD. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it yesterday, and thought about replying, but didn't get around to it before he archived the thread. I think the relist was wrong, but not too terribly wrong; for me, I'd probably relist if there were only 2 delete comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion declined

the only indication that the place even exists is a forum posting by someone who calls themselves "ecotourindia". overwhelmingly, the non-wikipedia google results are sourced to the wp page. that to me sounds like "unambiguously promotional". -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might mean it's non-notable, but it doesn't mean it's promotional. Again, how can you "promote" a waterfall? I really don't understand the rationale there. Suggest a merge, take it to AfD, whatever, but it certainly isn't G11. As a note, I just declined another one you made on a mall, because the promotional problem was fixed by hacking out a bunch of the text, and since there was an assertion of winning a local award, that is sufficient to at least consider it maybe notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the user page (Zmaassarani) of the article creator? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Zmaassarani, sorry -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: the waterfall, people promote the geological features of their properties as tourist destinations all the time. if its only source is from a tourism website, and it is otherwise non-notable (or even identifiable) that to me means that the page is there solely to advertise or promote that place as a tourist destination. thus, unambiguously promotional. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)And I've been deleting some of that user's creations. But, again, the article was on a waterfall. It didn't talk about all of the great services at the waterfall, it didn't argue that the waterfall was a perfect tourist attraction...there was nothing promotional about it. And, again, on the other mall, I believe that the award it won may be an indication of notability. I'm not certain of it, but I am certain that it deserves its 7 days at AfD, especially for others to search for sources, especially since most likely if there are good sources, they aren't in English. Just because an account is primarily promotional does not mean that everything it creates is automatically eligible for G11; sometimes you can save an article by removing all of the promotional material and retaining a simple, factual stub. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what, exactly, is the point of that? If someone in the future decides it's notable enough to have an article they can userfy the deleted article. The article was previously deleted, and this is a clear attempt to keep a solely promotional article by using an alternative spelling. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if the subject is notable, or might be notable, we want the article. Period. Some malls, for example, are notable. If we could verify that award in a reliable source (i.e., not a press release), I think it probably should remain an article. The waterfall, I'm guessing, should be deleted, but I also think it should probably remain as a redirect to Jeddah or whatever other regional article mentions it, assuming, again, we can find at least one RS. Remember, speedy deletion by definition is only for absolutely unambiguous cases; "normal" deletion is the 7 day AfD process. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for your reply, and you learn something new everyday. I might just do that an suggest a merger. I do have to say many of the page connected to Thomas the tank engine are in pretty pure state, and a big brush is really needed. --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also What is the other type of Deletion? ie NOT the speedy one? just for Ref? --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Discussion. But to do so, you need to show that the article violates our policies in some way. You may want to look at what other TV shows do for their article lists, as I think you'll find that the "list of lists" is pretty common for very long running series. But if you really want to suggest deletion, please read WP:LISTN, which is our guideline governing the notability of lists. If you take the article to AfD, there will be a 7 day discussion, in which any user can participate, and after that time an administrator will decide what the consensus is, based on user input and our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I shall kept for ref. I have no plans to place the page to AFD at this moment of time. Can i double check with you about something else?Tag Template:" expert-subject" for articles needing expert attention. What happens when this is added? I dont plan to add it to the page we have been talking about, but pages linked to it?--Crazyseiko (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of 2009 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

I just wanted let you know that you forgot to delete the talk page when you deleted 2009 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was on purpose. For some reason I was thinking that sometimes when an article is deleted via AfD, we can but don't have to retain the talk page with the link to the deletion discussion. But looking over the deletion process instructions again, it doesn't say that anywhere. I'm not sure why I was thinking that.... Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA4Life

Your speedy deletion of Forged Alliance Forever page, was so fast (~30 minutes for discussion) that it was not possible to even have a discussion. Please allow the discussion to take place before you make the choice to delete, A7 reason for deletion is not applicable in this case. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FA4life (talk • contribs)

I've moved this here to my talk page where responses should take place. However, I'll be replying on your talk page, because you're about to become unable to edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive edits - cinema of andhra

intro is not excessive, reverting disruptive edits, if u wish to correct bad sources in commercial stance section, u are absolutely welcome to do so, in that section, INTRO IS NOT EXCESSIVE I may report u to admin if u abuse the article and subject to content deletion. Murrallli (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are always welcome to report me wherever you want, although you may want to note that I am myself an admin and have a fairly good grasp of policy. Of the changes I made, some of them are actually mandatory (like the removal of sources that don't meet WP:RS), while some are a matter of editorial discretion (deciding exactly which movies to mention in the History section). I'm certainly open to a discussion on the points that are discretionary--simply start a talk page discussion on the matter. Heck, you're even welcome to revert me, as long as you don't revert the mandatory changes (RS, grammar, removal of non-neutral statements, etc.).

For the lead, I'll go ahead and explain on the article talk page so that others can be involved in discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contd:

lead section is okay and neutral, list of 2 crore gross films, 1 crore gross films, not required Murrallli (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

misleading edit summaries by you

where could u notice info about a single person in history of cinema of andhra pradesh, what are u upto vandalism or copy edit??? Murrallli (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create a separate section for each sentence, Murrallli. One section per subject is the rule, and you're pointlessly bloating up Qwyrxian's table of contents. Your accusations of "disruptive edits" and "vandalism" are nonsensical, as Qwyrxian was performing much-needed cleanup of the article. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Bishonen that this would be better as a single section. I'll respond to the specific question on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring

I am correcting ur vandalism and bad sources, kindly stop ur edit warring and obey 3RR. Doesn't matter whether i login or not, I dont have times

I am correcting the material which is not properly sourced, will u allow the other editor to contribute or not?? this is a content dispute (which is ur problem), do not blame it on sources, and ur completely deleting the content with ur vandalism. 14.139.95.98 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no you're not. You're returning bad grammar, sources that don't meet WP:RS, and information that doesn't meet WP:N to the article.

And you are right that it doesn't matter if you log in or not--your edits are counted as if you are the same person. You are now at 3RR, and I'm only at 2 reverts. I strongly recommend that you stop reverting the necessary improvements to the article and discuss the matter. Any further reverts on your part and I will seek to have both your IP address and your account blocked. I've already told you in 3 places that I'm happy to discuss the negotiable matters, but I am not going to discuss the possibility of re-adding unsourced, poorly sourced, non-neutral material to the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Qwyrxian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, and watching appropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

source content deletion is vandalism

I cannot accept ur edits, ur r reverting content which is sourced, u have reverted history of the cinema of andhra pradesh, which is not acceptable, u have reverted info on films like viswamohini, raithu bidda which is not acceptable, if u continue this disruption and vandalism i will report u to admin, this is my last warning to u 14.139.95.98 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contd:

as per ur guidance, I have shortened the info section, I am coming to mutual discussion with u. You cannot delete well sourced content in an article. please allow other editors to correct the content. you cannot delete whole content, ur vandalism is not acceptable.

Explain where u disagree the content, stop ur disruptive edits and content deletion 14.139.95.98 (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

moved content to history section

I have moved content to history section, kindly allow time to correct the content related to sources. I agree with u on not extending intro section, but u don't own Wikipedia, and u cannot go on with ur point of view. stop ur non sense and allow for mutual solution through discussion, and stop abusing fellow editors as vandals. 14.139.95.98 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my user login

I am unable to login with my username, as I forgot my password.

I agree with u on cinema of Andhra. However, I have moved content to history section, kindly allow time to correct the content related to sources. I agree with u on not extending intro section, but u don't own Wikipedia, and u cannot go on with ur point of view. stop ur non sense and allow for mutual solution through discussion, you stop conspiring with fellow editors and check references.

Removing well sourced content is called disruptive edit, If u have problem with content, correct the unsouced content do not remove references and sourced content 14.139.95.98 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

questions

1. why ru deleting information on east india film company, sati savitri???

2. why ru deleting information related to 1938 and 1941 in history of telugu cinema??

3. why ru trying to emphasize irrelavant info in the intro section???

4. who ru to block me 14.139.95.98 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have this conversation, politely, on the article talk page, after your block expires. It seems senseless to get into details now when you're going to be unable to respond soon. After you come back, please join the thread I already started on Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, ask the questions politely, and I will be happy to explain each point. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the second para of my version

in intro section is well sourced, and why ru deleting it???, u will be blcoked soon for ur vandalism, if u dont stop this nonsense 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ur conspiring with other editors to block me, ur deleting well documented and sourced content, and I should discuss with u???

I WANT TO KNOW WHY RU DELETING WELL SOURCED CONTENT, PUBLISHED BOOK SOURCES WHY RU DELETING??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

u have disobeyed 3RR and u will be blocked, not me

I am going to discuss with u, only if I am not blocked. I will not allow ur vandalism of deleting references. 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who ru to block me on content dispute hat u have with me 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new section every time you want to add a sentence. As for the above, I'm not going to block you, another admin will. As for the details, I'll just mention two things: one, as I said before, calling good faith edits vandalism is a personal attack, and you need to stop that. Two, just because content is sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. I can verify thousands, hundreds of thousands of statements about Telugu movies. I could verify the name of every actors who's ever been in a Telugu movie, every movie ever made, reviews of those movies, etc. The article could, if we wanted, be thousands of pages long. Obviously that's a bad idea. The point is that that article needs to be an overview of the entire industry and it's 80 year history. That means we have to be selective about what details we include. Should we discuss and come to a consensus about what to include? Absolutely, and I look forward to doing so after you are blocked for edit warring, but only if you discuss the matter politely and don't keep reverting in the meanwhile. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit articles in wikipedia

LESSON 1:

1. DELETING REFERENCES AND WELL SOURCED CONTENT IS VANDALISM AND DISRUPTIVE EDITING.

2. POINT OF VIEW IS A SERIOUS ISSUE

3. YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA

4. INTRO SECTION MUST NOT BE TOO LONG OR TOO SHORT

5. THE OTHER PERSON MAY BLOCK ME BECAUSE, U ARE LOBBYING HIM TO BLOCK ME VIA EMAIL.

6. IF CONTENT IS A PROBLEM, WE CAN RE ARRANGE CONTENT AS PER REFERENCE. WE CANNOT DELETE WHOLE CONTENT

7. Accusing me and disobeying 3RR by you is also not needed

LESSON 2:

AFTER I GO TO WASHROOM. Murrallli (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lesson 2:

YOU HAVE INITIALLY DISOBEYED MY 3RR, AND U R ACCUSING ME ABOUT THAT OTHER EDITOR WITH WHOM YOU ARE LOBBYING TO BLOCK, IT IS YOU WHO HAS TO BE BLOCKED FOR CONSTANT EDIT WARRING. DONT BLAME OTHER EDITORS FOR UR AGENDA DRIVEN VANDALISM, FROM PAST FEW HOURS YOU ARE ABUSING ME AND MY EDITS AND THE ARTICLE. WHAT KIND OF A PERSON U ARE?? YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO REASON WITH ME AND U R CONSTANTLY ABUSING THE ARTICLE AND FELLOW EDITORS?? Murrallli (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lesson 3

IF YOU WANT TO ABUSE FELLOW EDITORS BY BLOCKING THEM. DEAL WITH THE EDITOR DIRECTLY. STOP SENDING EMAILS TO OTHER EDITORS AND ADMINS, AND STOP LOBBYING OTHER EDITORS TO BLOCK ME AND STOP CONSPIRING AGAINST THE FELLOW EDITOR, WITHOUT COMMUNICATING WITH ME AND LOOK FOR AMICABLE RESOLUTION WHICH CAN BE ACCEPTED BY BOTH USERS Murrallli (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't sent emails to any other editors regarding you. And I find it interesting that you have suddenly remembered your password when you told me you had forgotten it. I'm not allowed to block you directly since I am involved with you on a content matter (this is in WP:INVOLVED). Unlike you, I generally try to avoid breaking WP rules. And if my suspicions are correct, you've been breaking Wikipedia rules for years, hundreds if not thousands of times. Is that correct? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Murali

I understand the trouble u r going through with him, and u have warned him to behave properly multiple times, even though he continues to behave violently. I too have had troubles with him, so I think its good that u just block him and his IP address as well. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrogen asphyxiation

You have reverted content on "Nitrogen Asphyxiation" and Capital Punishment. Editing factual text that is well sourced and documented, simply because you don't believe it's relevant, is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.196.253 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect: there are hundreds of reason to remove sourced content. In this case, I'm removing it per WP:UNDUE, because the quotation you pulled is not relevant (in my opinion) to the article. I'm going to revert your addition now. Per WP:BRD, if another editor legitimately rejects a new addition, that editor (you, in this case) should go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe other editors will agree with you; maybe you can even persuade me that the content is relevant and due. But you'll need to have that discussion first. I'll even open up a thread there you can discuss it in in just a few minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to the concept of "Neutrality", it is required that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The article gives merely a brief introduction to nitrogen asphyxiation as capital punishment, but only identifies the pro-life argument failing to acknowledge the opposing pro-capital punishment viewpoint. The article finishes by stating that no state has adopted the procedure, yet without giving both viewpoints, the article is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.196.253 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. This is not a discussion between you and I--it needs to be between any interested article. I will explain there why you are wrong, but I need this to be an open discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

The statements of the government is sourced.Only having the stand of TNA and the state makes balance. First the pro-Sri Lankan state editors removed the separate section about war crimes,then the section about the civil war.Now they [including you] say that there is no need of reference to the stand of the SL state about the political solution.Wikipedia is NOT a TOURIST SITE for SRI LANKA (Arun1paladin (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Arun1paladin)[reply]

No, I have no opinion whatsoever on the matter. I'm acting as an administrator to enforce the consensus determined on the article talk apge, and you are edit warring against that consensus. You are welcome to pursue dispute resolution, but further reverts will be considered edit warring and will result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

message

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

☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Qwyrxian

Please add the removed content to the article "Anitha Shaiq" you will be blocked otherwise. it is a brief information about the person and i am the original editor of this article.--johnsib (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained at both the article and your talk page, information on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. This is explained in WP:V, and it is one of the most important rules on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cummins

Good work on the Cummins site. It needed it. I hesitate to edit things I find strange on there because of my user name.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. It's entirely possible that more of the article needs to be cut, but those were just the fastest and most obvious problems I saw. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink

I have no objection to the specific Wikilink at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&oldid=570906103&diff=prev ; it's just that it was added by a blocked editor, and many of his edits are absurdly wrong. I thought it better to revert all of his edits, rather than taking the time to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Qwyrxian

please check the link i have given here.http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/rolling-in-the-hits/article1151079.ece, it states all the informations i have added to "Anitha Shaiq" is true and sourced. why you have removed contents from this article?--johnsib (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)please talk to == Jimfbleak == regarding if you have any doubts--johnsib (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]