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

Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great

Last year I requested moving Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo to Gwanggaeto the Great (/Archive 40#Gwanggaeto the Great). And today I found its talk page was not moved along with it and still at Talk:Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo (I should have noticed this when the page move was done but somehow I missed it). Would you please move the talk page as well? I think it is WP:G6 eligible and tagging Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great with {{db-move|Talk:Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo|reason}} will fix the problem but I thought I'd ask you first. And please tag the talk page with {{Vital article|level=4|topic=People}} after the move. --Kusunose 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done--sorry about that. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter account

If anyone comes here after being contacted by the Twitter account using my Wikipedia name, please note that that is not me--it's an impersonating account operated, I assume, by an ex-Wikipedian with a grudge. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). 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) 00:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh

Hi! Please check this source (you will need to download), it says Chandigarh's population is 960,787. I guess someone deliberately inserted those factual errors. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--thanks for finding that source. Could you update the Demographics section and fix the links there, too? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thank you

Disturbing and I don't believe it. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TESO may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''TESO''' was a [[Hacker (computer security)|hacker group]], which originated in [[Austria]. It was active from 1998 to 2004, and during its peak around 2000, it was responsible for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So who's the puppet master?

Aabrucadubraa (talk · contribs) has been here since the 12th. ClenserBlastAaa (talk · contribs) only created today, but posts to a talk page manually signing as Aabrucadubraa.[1]. Then there's 100.44.112.221 (talk · contribs), posting only to insult. That IP gelocates near the IP claiming to be Santilli.70.125.25.14 (talk · contribs). I've added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dougweller, I have no information about what this investigation is, but in general context I would suggest you get a life of your own rather than researching and investigating what others are editing and creating, unless they are causing some serious disruption to wikipedia. It is far more constructive to research articles and write new information than researching people's accounts. I do not intend to cause any ill feelings but this message is in some good intent alone so we could make better use of our time in a more efficient and constructive manner.

Marchoctober (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marchoctober, You clearly aren't aware of the disruption, attacks on Jews, attacks on Wikipedians, etc that are behind all this. Another Admin has blocked these accounts. Do you really think we should just ignore blatant anti-Semitic posts on talk pages (as an example of what this group of socks or meatpuppets has been doing)? Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller is absolutely correct here, and you're completely out of line, Marchoctober. Santilli and/or his close associates have been, for several years, attempting to transform his Wikipedia article (and associated articles) into pieces supporting and promoting his scientific theory. This scientific theory has almost no support within the scientific community, his results have not been replicated outside of people directly associated with him, and he has published almost nothing on his theories in independent, peer-reviewed journals. Now, that promotion, ultimately, isn't all that bad; it's no different than a company trying to make its Wikipedia article look like a piece of advertising, and it's easily dealt with. But in addition to all of that, Santilli and/or his associates want his Wikipedia article to reflect, as fact, his claim that the only reason his theories aren't widely accepted is because there is a vast, world-wide web of Jewish scientists who want to promote Einstein and repress all dissenting voices. A number of Wikipedia editors have been accused of being part of this global conspiracy. And that is absolutely unacceptable and needs to stop as soon as possible and as often as needed, because we're not going to be the mouthpiece for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. So Dougweller and any other editor who thinks that they can help in this matter is welcome and encouraged to do so.

But even your underlying critique is flawed. Wikipedia needs people of many different types working on it. I, for example, don't do very much article expansion. I have at times in the past, but since I don't have access to a lot of sources and I don't have a lot of time to commit to extended research, I now spend far more time editing existing articles, removing non-neutral poorly sourced junk, and dealing with administrative matters. If you want to work on building and creating new articles (or expanding existing ones) then that's absolutely great--we need content creators, we need content editors, we need administrators, we need policy-wonks, etc. If all of us gave up administrative tasks and focused solely on expanding articles, half of the encyclopedia would collapse in days, as articles were overrun with vandals and POV-pushers, constantly warring with other POV-pushers. Part of the "cost" of having Wikipedia open to anyone who wants to edit it is that we have to take a lot of effort to deal with edits made with improper intentions. So Dougweller, and I, are using our Wikipedia time in "efficient and constructive manner[s]", to use your phrase. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciate the efforts taken to explain all the above so patiently in detail, I will agree with you based on the above explanation.Marchoctober (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

There has been an effort again by User:Joshua Jonathan to show the personality in less light, please see here., I haveundone him . Especially because this particular information is sourced and also been on this wiki page from ages. Please see the talk page also where he explained doing so to show the personality in a more down to earth manner. Also for some reason removed multiple links, not mentioning anything why he did so either on talk page or in description of is edit. Marchoctober (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough!!! This has been thoroughly explained and discussed at the Talk Page, in a discussion between User:Abecedare and me. Marchoctober has had plent of opportunity to participate, which he did not do. His one source only calls Radhakrishnan a "great scholar", and does not support the rest of the sentence. And my change was also sourced. The links were removed because I'd copied part of the lead to the Talk Page, to write a proposal for a change in the lead. I hadn't noticed it was without links, yet this no good reason to revert. They can be re-inserted quite easily, can't they?

By the way, are you a reincarnation of User:Padmalakshmisx? Last edit at Cinema of Andhra Pradesh by User:Wheelwat at 8 november 2012, while User:Kondakotaiah starts at 9 november 2012, with the same interest in the Cinema of Andhra Pradesh.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only have time at the moment to comment on the last point: No, this isn't (I think) Padmalakshmisx. Marchoctober has stated directly that he is User:RTPking, using a new account because he forget the password to the old one. That's of course completely acceptable, as long as the accounts are publicly linked, as they are on Marchoctober's user page. And it was confirmed at Padmalakshmisx's SPI that RTPking/Marchoctober is not even in the same country. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]