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

Demigodz

Hi there,

I think this group easily meets WP:MUSIC and I think the article should be unsalted and recreated. Someone has already created DemiGodZ as a redirect to Apathy (rapper), but I suppose this was done just to get around the salting.

Here are a few sources demonstrating their notability as a group: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

Thanks. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't even get to the salted page because the redirect automatically takes over, even if I use the original capitalization. I don't remember if it was deleted via AfD, or just through speedies; the next correct step depends on what happened before. Do you remember? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your own deletion was a speedy. You can get to the salted page by clicking the Demigodz redlink on Apathy's article. Thanks. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. My deletion was a speedy deletion based on WP:CSD#G4--that's a deletion because the article was previously deleted at a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demigodz (2nd nomination). As such, you have to be able to overcome the concerns raised there. I don't know much about hip-hop, but at a quick glance, those "references" you link to all appear to be blogs or something similar, and thus don't meet WP:RS. What you should probably do is draft the article in your userspace, then take the matter to WP:DRV under the grounds of "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." If they think it's sufficiently changed to overcome the G4, then they'll probably let you move it into mainspace, though they may require it face another AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The group seems to easily meet criterion #6 at WP:MUSIC - "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". I notice part of the rationale for the original deletion in 2008 was that none of the members were independently notable, but that was incorrect, as the articles for Apathy, 7L & Esoteric, DJ Cheapshot and Styles of Beyond all pre-date that deletion. Celph Titled has also had an article for the past few years. Is that not fairly open and shut? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On that matter, you're asking the wrong person, because I don't believe that criteria applies to much pop music, and especially not hip-hop, based on the way that membership in "groups" spring up and down at a moment's notice, and two people may come together as a "group" for a single song and then the "group" immediately ceases to exist. I'm not willing to override the AfD. But DRV can do it for you, and I won't take any action against it. You still need to find reliable sources, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Deobandi Article

Dear Qwyrxian --

I noticed you just reverted my changes to the "Notable Institutions" in the Deobandi Article. I see that you cited the Due and Undue Weight guidelines. I understand that the references I added should also be in the target pages, but what other way is there to justify which institution should be listed in this article and which one is not influential enough? I feel that only madrasas that are particularly influential should be listed in this article. As I try to edit that section, I see numerous madaris that have been added to the list, yet are very small in size or influence. Some are not even Deobandi. How else can we determine this except through a short description?

Regardless, if it's OK with you, I'd at least like to organize that sub-section based on country. It will look a little neater.

Thanks

--Sarashee1 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if you add a paragraph of info on two of them, while providing no info on the others, then you're giving those particular madrasas undue importance. As for the criteria that should be used in including items on the list, we should probably hash out something on the article's talk page. I have guesses, but other editors should join the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have clarified. I plan to include a paragraph on each entry listed. I was just working on one section at a time. I did all the British madaris. Then I'll do the South Africans, and so on. Is that OK? --Sarashee1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for User talk:120.28.128.51

Hi it's Coyote wadi for User talk:120.28.128.51 if distrupt editing DWRR-FM will be blocked from editing at 2 weeks. Coyote wadi (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited since September. I'm not sure what you're asking. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Pandita

Hi Dear Qwyrxian, I respectfully ask You to please manage few minutes for Rahul Pandita. I think, at-least now, "Template:Non-free" can be removed. I AM somewhat unsure, so, I think I should refrain from doing it Myself. Also, I request, that if You may look forward to remove any sentence within quotes (" "), then please consider rephrasing it, rather than removing it. I guess You Yourself would prefer to do correct things that way as well. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you want me to edit the article. If I did, I'd remove 75% of it. An article about a person, even an author, should not be a collection of quotes from reviews. Are you sure you want me to do it? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ROFL, Thank You Dear for Your wonderful reply. Then, please give Me only 2 (maximum 3) days, so that I can follow and act as per Your words of advice. I will do homework. I have already started Googling. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 07:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this editor?

No idea why he reverted me here.[9] A brief look at his other edits suggests he may have a pov problem. I see he reverted you also. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, most of his edits seem to be good--reverting vandalism or poor additions to articles it looks like he cares about. On Niyogi where he reverted me, he did stop after my second revert. On Cinema of Andhra Pradesh...my guess is a combination of POV and English ability (I see English problems in his editing history, including where I was reverting him on Niyogi)...he probably saw an IP remove something and then assumed the removal was vandalism...I don't see anything to terribly bad in the editing history, though, and definitely some good, so probably not too much of a cause for alarm. I have a slight worry of a deeper problem, but if this is a sleeper, it's hiding very low for right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sleepers do behave that way at times of course - we have get socks of the same puppetmaster arguing with each other, as I'm sure you know. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussions with disruptive dynamic IP

Should I bother to start a discussion concerning Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency)? It is periodically hit by the efforts of a dynamic anon and they'should obviously be aware of my comments in edit summaries regarding WP:V etc because they're undoing my reverts. If it was practically anything but an article related to India then I'd start a discussion by default but experience suggests that doing so for dynamics in this area makes little difference to outcomes. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've protected for a week, reverted the unsourced material, and opened up a conversation on the article talk page. Reverting unsourced info I believe does not make me WP:INVOLVED, since WP:V is very clear and unambiguous, and, of course WP:BLP arguably applies as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping that you would protect and thus force the issue to the talk page. We'll see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi! Thanks a lot for reviewing my edits. :) However, I reverted your changes since my updates were correct.

Mohan Lal Grero has now crossed over to the government and is the deputy minister of education. Refer to the official website http://www.moe.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158&Itemid=263&lang=en

About Professor Jayatilleke, I personally know him and he is the head of my university. His name is misspelled and I have made a change request and updated his biography page too. Please let me know if you need any other sources. :)

Regards, Navaka.

Navakawiki (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine; I only reverted because Jayatilleke was unsourced. That page (as with many alumni pages) gets people adding themselves or colleagues or friends that they "know" attended the school, but for whom there is no source for either alumni status or notability. So, my standard approach (and that of many others) is to automatically revert every redlink of a person to a list of this type per WP:NLIST. But now that it's linked I see that the professor's page contains a verified source for his alumni status, so everything's good. Thanks for following up on that, and so politely, too! Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Conghua

Perhaps the page can be "pending changes" and semi-protected simultaneously, although semi-prot. is one week. Or it can be "Pending changes" instead, as it has been edited infrequently. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the problem is recent (last week or so), my goal with the semiprotection is to get the IP editor to start using the talk page instead of edit warring. If it were a user with an account, I (or the involved editors) could have started with a discussion on the user's talk page, but since the account is dynamic, there's no way to tell the person, "Hey, you need to talk about this". For me, PC is primarily for cases with long term vandalism but also a mix of good IP edits, and I mostly restrict its use to BLPs or other sensitive topics. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4946996/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm#trivia - mentions about his 3 inspirations for his acting career and whose influence among them is more on him. It also mentions his parents and sisters name. The http://www.indicine.com/name/himansh-kohli specifically mentions his family people again. both these links have are definitely reliable.If you feel the parents thing is not reliable right now. then atleast keep the inspiration part as that's directly mentioned in imdb.Malkinrowdy (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

IMDB can be edited directly by users and can never be used to verify anything other than very basic, obvious information, like the cast of an already released movie (i.e., something that could be verified by watching the credits of a movie or television show). Indicine doesn't even come close to being a reliable source; it looks like an aggregator of other web content; it has no named authors or editorial team. So, no, that info cannot be included until you find a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But name of parents, sister, school, college, inspiration for influence in acting - are very basic info. They may even appear in future interviews of the actor. Presently even his facebook profile shows these things.At present we may not have much references other than this. One more is there in indiaforum and his own facebook profile(personal account ) and other being his official fan page handled by him in twitter and facebook.Malkinrowdy (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If we can verify with certainty that his facebook page is under his own control, then it can be used as a reliable source, but only for information about him--not for information about other people. And no, family, school, and influences are not basic information that IMDB can verify. As I said, IMDB can basically only be used for things that could be verified by someone watching the movie or tv show. It is essentially an open wiki, in that it can be edited by anyone; this means it is not a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay then please see the link his father has posted - https://www.facebook.com/AMITYUniversitykiFamousHastiya/posts/1430141567202164:0 shows he is from Amity university and even his years in college has been mentioned.His official fan page handled by him and his personal account again handled by him also refer to the fact that he is inspired by Rajesh Khanna heavily as he regards him as his idol - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php? fbid=424735937568843&set=a.257258800983225.60140.244555798920192&type=1&theater . Now his personal Id is https://www.facebook.com/himansh.kohli. He mentions his father, mother and sisters names as well as his school name, college name.Malkinrowdy (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The first link you provided is some sort of Amity University fan page, with no official recognition, and thus not reliable. The picture you provide does not state he regarded him as an idol--it says, "I still remember when we met he told my mom today I'm a superstar tomorrow he ll be jus do a favour to this child isse acting Karne bhej dena my blessings with him . Miss u kaka may ur soul r.i.p " That does not say that he looked up to or was inspired by Khanna. As for the rest of the facebook page, what evidence do we have that it's his official page? The reason I ask is that it has happened before that what looks like an official page is actually run by a fan. However, the way that one is written, it's probably okay to use. So if you can find a specific link to the page that lists his college, we can use that do verify the school he attended. We should probably not use it to verify his family info, as we usually cannot use self-published sources for info on other people. Plus, there's no real need for that info, anyway--while a lot of WP pages have them, the only people we should usually name are the parents (and, personally, I don't even know if that's always necessary, though I wouldn't object if it could be verified). We should not name his other relatives unless they are also notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Am only saying that since parents and immediate sibling information is not trivial - atleast without naming any source we can provide for time being say for next 4-5 months as Vipin Kohli's original account - https://www.facebook.com/Vipin9980/about- mentions his son as Himansh Kohli and their respective personal facebook account does give away their family photos with name of his mother, father, sister, school.(as probably more newspaper artciles or other articles would appear in web once his film nears its release)Himansh is fan of Rajesh Khanna - that he has mentioned in many of the comments made by him in various places in facebook, forums, youtube interviews. So currently if only external links are given to his official fanpage and his personal account that would suffice.Malkinrowdy (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting possible sock suspect of Padmalakshmisx

Hi again, I don't have much experience in WP:SPI so I thought I'd directly report this to you in case I'm wrong. The main master is I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive (you've dealt with this before) and I'm reporting User:Newlife2. After you had reverted the sock edits in Swarnakamalam, this user made similar such edits again over there, same goes with the edits at Genome Valley.

A possible WP:DUCK? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked and tagged. I think all of the edits have already been reverted. Thanks for letting me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Drug Recognition Expert

This is important topic --- use in last 10 years has skyrocketed. I don't see it elsewhere on W'pedia. I'm slowly filling this in as time allows. I'll get to the peer-reviewed science in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanstone456 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC) −

And once there is some independent sources, the notability template can be removed. Adding the template simply asks the question; I didn't nominate for deletion, which is what I would do if I were certain it were non-notable. That being said, once you're done adding whatever you've found, we'll have to consider whether it's best as a stand-alone article or as part of some larger article. That will be determined primarily based on how much independent coverage it's gotten. I recommend focussing on the independent info now, rather than trying to provide more details from within the certifying organizations themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, there isn't much in the way of independent sources for these police tests. They were invented by police. The only people eligible to do them are police. They are promoted by police. The people giving the other side are defense attorneys --- and they're no more dispassionate than the police. There is some peer-reviewed science. Like I said, I'll get to that.

Know too that the stories police tell courts and the public often differ substantially from what they write in their official documents--standards and manuals. So an article quoting manuals is useful in giving readers the background official facts.

Tell me where you think the article should go, and I'll do it there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanstone456 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 

I CAN'T Make a Standard Block Appeal w/o Talkpage Access

Jeez, you are SO QUICK with your Twinkle revert and IP block, you don't even think about what you're doing, you don't even consider that there's a person on the receiving end of your actions. I can't make a standard block appeal because my talkpage is blocked to me (by Spartaz, without warning or talkpage comment, who aleged I used it as a "pulpit." It is unfair to have me email BASC because my original blockers sits on BASC and refuses to recuse.

C . C
o . o
l . s
t . m
o . i
n . c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.3.87 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I knew exactly what I was doing and I am aware of your situation. But the problem is is that Arbcom has declined to unblock you. Admins are not allowed to override their decision. The only person who could possibly do so is Jimmy Wales, and as far as I know, he's also declined to take up your case (given that you've posted to his talk page, and emailed him, and announced that he hasn't followed up on your case). I'll keep reverting you anywhere I see you pop up--obviously, I'm not watching everywhere, but I'm trying to help get it through your head that, unfortunately, there is no way forward for you via admin talk pages.

Let me try to put this another way: if Magog (or anyone else unblocked you), Magog himself would have to be blocked, and he'd face a desysop request. We cannot override an Arbcom decision.

I have no idea if the Arbcom decision was unfair. I have no idea if the original block is unfair. But we have processes, and you have exactly two processes open to you: BASC, and appeal to the benevolent and mostly recused dictator. That's it. Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, read what I wrote to Magog. Arbcom declining to lift my block does NOT mean everyone else must decline it, and they themselves say so. You have no policy for any of this, if you did, you would link it. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You want a link? WP:BLOCK. When you are blocked, you may not edit. Period. Not for any reason, except to make an unblock request on your talk page. And if you're not allowed to make one there, then you have to use WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. You cannot edit as an IP--even to request an unblock. Period. You may not edit. That is the policy. It is as bloody simple as that. I'm sorry you don't like the rules, and feel that the avenues open to you will impinge on your privacy. But those are the rules. This is no different than any other private site. You can't hack your way into, say, the New York Times and try to insist that they either let you read their site without contracting with them or, as you're effectively insisting here, force them to allow you to publish on their site. Wikipedia has rules. It's not a public space where you have some sort of right to be here. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not again compare block evasion on Wikipedia to the unlawful activity of hacking the New York Times website to publish there. That is a bad and wrong comparison. The policy you cite here has nothing to do with what you said before, the stuff about "admins are forbidding from unblocking you." I take it as an admission you can't back that up. If you want to switch gears to WP:BLOCK, that policy expressly makes it discretionary to revert a block evader's edits. "Discretionary" means it is up to you, you can't say you "had to" or "have to" do it. If you want to revert my civil and constructive edits, such as that to Magog's talkpage, then WP:BLOCK says you may, but don't pretend it says you must.

A clearly abusive block such as mine by Timotheus (no warning, no explanation, no diffs, untrue) means that block evasion is justified. There is no room at all for such a block to be non-abusive. The "secret evidence" argument is discredited, and Jimbo knows my former account is in good standing as well that true to my word I never edited with it since I switched. I edited Wikipedia for longer and probably authored more articles than you ever did. I will keep responsibly block evading to seek fair treatment as long as it takes. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That last point is where you're making your error. You have no right to fair treatment here. This is a private website, and access to it, at least in terms of editing, is 100% at the discretion of the Wikimedia Foundation. They have delegated the bulk of that discretion to the community, who has, in turn, invested much, though not all, of the ability to block users to administrators and Arbcom. You attempting to edit here is a violation of our rules. You have no recourse here other than the two official set of rules. I'm sorry that you don't like that, and accept that something unfair may have been done in your case, but those are the rules. You have to either decide to submit to the "unfair" and "unreasonable" rules, or you have to find another hobby. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sangram Singh

Dear Qwyrxian,

I see you have problems with the section on controversies. Can you please tell me which of them can be retained? Is not a person's own facebook page and website making claims not good enough? What about the official site of the even which does not support the person's claim? He is a public personality after all.

I think we should have some details on the controversy section.

- ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmax (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the official site says that Sangram SIngh is wrong? Or are you saying that his Facebook page says, "This is controversial, but..."? I doubt that's the case. If so, we cannot take his facebook page, compare it to official sites, and then label it a controversy. Instead, what we need is an independent, third party source that discusses the claims and compares them. Do you know of such a source? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also, in order to use the Facebook page, we'll need to be certain it really is controlled by him, not by a fan; for that we usually need some sort of independent source as well (like where he talked about the site in an interview). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning User Jfgoofy

Earlier this summer, you remember how you and Mufka blocked one Jfgoofy for edit-warring in order to keep his original research edits in various articles, and then warned him to not continue such behavior? He's still making the same original research edits while edit-warring to keep them in pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, and indicated that this is the last chance--if it starts up again next year, let me know and the next block will be indefinite. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply

When I revert someone else's edits, it is considered removing content and I am told to take it to the talk. When someone else reverts my edits, it is considered legitimate grounds and I am also told to take it to the talk. Is there any scenario in which somebody else has to defend their shit? Why is my content always the one that's removed in the meantime? I'm just trying to create a good article so I have a better chance of getting my editing rights back, but as always I'm getting the usual Admin berate. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It always depends on context. I don't know about the other times this has happened to, so I can't comment on them, but on Joel Osteen, you added a very large amount of information, some of which was verified by questionable sources, introduced a very large amount of positive information, removed a bunch of negative information, and had an unusually large number of direct quotes. These are all things which were concerning to other editors. As such, following WP:BRD, you were reverted, and so it's up to you to discuss. The circumstances are different if, say, there was already discussion on talk, or if the addition was impeccably sourced and neutral, or other cases. In any event, Grayfell has provided some more info on the article's talk page, so why don't you follow up there? If there are other cases where you think you're being treated unfairly, feel free to let me know and I will look into them; but even if you think it's unfair, the safest thing is always to stop reverting, discuss, and call in an admin or noticeboard or dispute resolution or someting. I think this is especially true since you've had problems with this matter in the past, and it seems like maybe you're just not quite understanding how WP works. Note that, as Grayfell said, a good portion of what you changed on Joel Osteen was for the positive, so it seems like you can be a good contributor. It can be tough to really get integrated with Wikipedia's culture, so please ask if you want. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)