User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

hh

there is no IRS Page sir,only this website http://irsofficersonline.gov.in/,,which give employment info.the info i put is my own not copied and is not sounding like sales pitch or a recruitment drive.this is simply what the IRS does.we are part of the IRS fans association but not trying to recruit ppl.the info is encyclopaedic and i request you to please reconsider.thank you.(Mejojoseph22 (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)0

The following statements are POV: "IRS officers undergo a very dynamic training in specialised matters", "The general administrative acumen of the service has also got some recognition of late", " This widening of opportunities and exposure has made the IRS more attractive." "The service offers immense diversity of work and officers", "

These unique skills enable them to analyze complex, often unusual, financial transactions, and are best utilized to combat terrorism involving:" and others. That sounds exactly like the Service trying to explain how great it is to try to get a job there. And even if we cut all of that out, the details simply aren't encyclopedic. We are not here to provide every single piece of information about subjects. The exact recruitment and training process of this organization, or any other, are simply outside of our mission. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

		A beer on me!
		Thank you for your spirit of collaboration on the Pinto article! Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It's midmorning here, so I'll have to wait til later, but I'll drink that down tonight! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Great Lakes Warriors

dear Qwyrxian, i think i have fixed the Great Lake Warriors page. i have added simple info that is also found on the history channels website, and i also added some links and references. yes i am still getting use to how wikipedia works so if you could, please help me by fixing any possible "problems". i believe i have put enough links/references that do back up what i have posted on Great Lake Warriors so i think i have fixed the problem. any help would be much apreciated, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M-134 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, some of those citations were good. I cleaned up the grammar and the citation format. Let me know if you ever have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Artix Entertainment

I saw you reverted four edits made by me on the Artix Entertainment article. Why were the other two edits that you provided no reason for reverted? There is no need for the External Link section in the article since the only link there is the company's website which is already written on the article's infobox. Why should Lawsuit be in an article about a game development company? It's not important and it wouldn't interest anyone.-KidXap (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The EL belongs because information in the infobox should usually be duplicated within the article. For companies and people, if they have an official website, we almost always link it in both places. As for the lawsuit...it's a lawsuit against Artix, right? If it was covered in the mainstream press, it should probably be included. But maybe I'm mistaken about what it said; I'll look into it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I understand about the EL. Were there any reasons why you reverted my other two edits still or can I add them back to the article? About the Lawsuit, on the source provided in the article, it does not mention anything about Alpha Evolution or Asib Tayeb, you might want to view the source if you haven't already. -KidXap (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this in all of the activity that's been on my page recently. You are 100% correct that the linked source said absolutely nothing about a lawsuit. My apologies for not checking the source carefully and for reverting that edit in the middle of your others. I've now removed the section from the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! Other than the External Links and Lawsuit, you also reverted two more edits, any reason for those? -KidXap (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Glancing at them now, they seem okay; I don't remember if I had a specific reason, or if I was just focused on the other two edits and the copy-editing got caught in the rollback. Feel free to re-add them if you think they're still needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Really?

How is it libel again Anita has admitedly spoken on the wage gap issues which is infact myth I gave a valid link to several jobs that are not filled majority wise with women yet women out earn men. Forbes is a far more valid source than Ms magazine, whose own editor hates men here qoutes against men have not been proven as misquotes so that really doesn't help your argument fyi. Hell the woman stereotypes men as rapists and pedoephiles even though women make up the majority of pedophiles. Really wikipediais one of the worst sites for information I'm only trying discredit that imageDarkproxy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said you libelled Sarkeesian. I said that you're not trying to contribute to improving Wikipedia articles. You can't use the talk page of her article to argue whether or not Sarkeesian is correct--go to her blog, or your own blog, if you want to do that. The only thing you can use that page for is to improve coverage of Sarkeesian itself. Wikipedia is not a forum, not a blog. You can't even use the talk pages to "discredit Wikipedia". If you want to help improve articles, do so. If you just want to chat, stop editing here or you will be stopped by a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me there is a link on my talk page from you about libeling her184.56.29.78 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I'm the one who reverted your edit and left the first warning on your talk page. OrangeMike left the second one. Calling someone a liar is a clear violation of wiki policy. Accusing her of stereotyping all men as "rapists" is also a clear violation, as well as patently false. Your personal opinions on what is and is not "bullshit" are not what decides wiki content: verifiable claims and analysis from reliable sources is. I'd suggest reading wp:or and wp:pov if you plan to stick around. Glaucus (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson

Hi there, I've got a new article draft that I've proposed as a replacement for the current Eric C. Anderson article and I was wondering if you'd be available to review and potentially merge it into mainspace. My feeling is that it's a fairly simple case, since the current article isn't that great: the main part of the article is a series of disjointed paragraphs, most sources are primary sources and there's not that much information in general compared to what's been written about him in well-established business and science publications. But it remains to be seen what others say. The edit request is here and the draft article is here.

As per usual, I'm working on behalf of a company, in this case Mr. Anderson's Space Adventures, so I'm hoping that editors will come along and review the draft. So far, there haven't been any comments and I've not had any luck with WikiProject Biography. I've just left a note at WP:COI/N (besides Silverseren, he seems busy) but if you can think of others who might be interested, let me know and I'll reach out there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a quick glance, and I see some concerns, so I can't just do a quick copy-over. I'll raise the one I saw already, but I'll have to do an in-depth look this time, which is going to take some time. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Let me know your concerns on the Talk page there, when you have the time available, and I'll see what I can do to help resolve them. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 05:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, so I just realized this morning that you did add your comment on the draft's Talk page. I thought you made a good point about the source, so I've updated the draft and explained a bit more back there. Thanks, and I'll look forward to more feedback when you're able. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RST Storm

I doubt you know what this vehcile is but it was originally designed for use with the MV22 Osprey in the USMC. Now I have noticed that this site has no information on this vehicle despite the fact it used several advanced technologies before cancelation. I was wondering were to ebgin with this as an artcleDarkproxy (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first thing to do would be to gather reliable sources; you can check WP:RS for what Wikipedia defines as reliable. Note that if there aren't enough reliable sources (generally, we need at least 2 that discuss the subject in detail, not just as a passing mention), then the vehicle can't have its own article. Once you have sources, you'll want to draft the article. Drafting your first article is hard (personally, I rarely start articles from scratch, preferring to edit those started by others), but if you go to WP:FIRST, there's a whole set of help pages that will guide you through the process. One of the things linked on that help page is the [{WP:Article wizard|article wizard]], which I strongly recommend for your first article (some people use it every time they make a new article). It's nice because it already has most of the formatting built in. If you click through the Wizard, just before you actually open up the page to start editing the article, it's going to give you the choice of making an article draft, or submitting the article directly for review. I recommend creating a draft first, as that will let you edit it multiple times in your userspace before others review it. Once it's ready, then you will be able to submit it for review to our articles for creation team, who will review it to make sure it meets Wikpedia's minimum requirements. At any point in this process, you're welcome to ask me for help. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQwyrxian&diff=518410353&oldid=518409927. You should consider making it a blog post! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 23:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Superb encapsulation of the testosterone problem! Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I have no idea why I just wrote an essay on gender, masculinism, and online culture. I once had a blog, but closed it down due to lack of activity, and later erased it because a Wikipedia vandal used it to track down my real life employer. I do feel that before I actually "published" it somewhere (even in something like an op-ed), I'd want to get some citations to support my claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, don't let it be lost in an archive! :) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not gone, but forgotten?

You may want to take a look at this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I want to block, but I know that such a block won't be upheld by the community (given that there was little commentary on ANI last time). I've made this an only warning, and will block next time. If you see anything even vaguely similar, don't bring it to ANI--bring it here and I'll act (assuming it is a legitimate BLP violation). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Denny Moss

Hi, is adding the tweet Justin made to Denny Moss verifiable, or the link to Denny's MTV page?--WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)WikiProInfoGuy

Tweets are generally never considered to be reliable sources of information; if we are absolutely certain the twitter account is official, then it can be used for very basic information, but only about the person making the tweet itself. So, if Justin tweeted about Moss, then the tweet is not RS for purposes of verifying something about Moss. Remember, a tweet is really just someone saying something out loud. There's no fact-checking, no editorial team, etc. So if Person A tweets, "It's my birthday today" (and Person A has a WP article, and we know that's an official twitter feed, and we know that Person A is known for being generally truthful on said feed), then we could include that information on WP. But if Person A tweets, "Happy Birthday, Person B", we could not use that to verify that it's person B's birthday. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well Justin does mention about working with Moss in his tweet from his Verified account, And I'm sure he wouldn't if it wasn't true?--WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)WikiProInfoGuy

It would depend on exactly what the tweet said. If it said "it's a pleasure to work with you", that doesn't verify that Denny Moss is now signed to Cash Money Records. Unless it said something extremely specific like, "I'm proud to welcome Denny Moss as a new musician signed to Cash Money Records", then maybe we might allow it. Note that just because Moss worked with Beiber on one or two songs, that doesn't in any way make him associated with those labels. Dozens of musicians may appear on an album as backup, as djs, as studio musicians...but we don't say that those people are a "Cash Money Records artist" or "Island Records artist". And similarly, WIkipedia articles aren't here to list every single person who ever laid down a bass track or spun a disk on a record label. The only time we really try for an exhaustive list of artists is on the detailed track list on an album, and then we only ever use the info listed on the album notes (and sometimes other very reliable sources). If Denny Moss ever becomes notable in his own right, then we can consider other places to include him in WP. But just doing a little work with other famous musicians is not justification for fitting him in wherever you can. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, well what he tweeted was about being with Moss working on Fall. And Moss is not so much known because he isn't an artist signed to them, he is signed producer, which of course gave him the opportunity to work with Bieber. So if I wanted to add the tweet to verify it, where would I put it? --WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)WikiProInfoGuy

The details you've just given confirm it does not belong in Wikipedia. He's a producer, without much notability, who happened to work on a Fall. Is that an upcoming album? If so, we won't even know for sure if Moss's contribution will remain once the album is final cut. Is it a single song? Surely you can see how it's not appropriate for us to manage who happened to be one of the producers on one of many hundreds of songs? The formal policy that covers this is WP:UNDUE, but the quick summary is that this is trivia, a tiny detail that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2012 (UT

Hi, yes it is in his album called "Believe" and was one of the Number 1 Albums. --WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)WikiProInfoGuy

Forgot to add, Fall is the name of the song that Moss Wrote/Produced. --WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)WIkiProInfoGuy

If you go to Believe (Justin Bieber album) you'll see that Moss is already listed there. He's probably in the liner notes, which is why he was credited. So, it seems like this is already done. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, okay. Thank you anyway. --WikiProInfoGuy (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)WikiProInfoGuy

User page

I've responded on my talk page. Pleased to help on this. Best. Ironman1104 (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pituitary gland

Dear Qwyrxian,

I AM FRUSTRATED! Most of what I put down is in EVERY college textbook of anatomy and physiology - First, I don't want "Allart" at the bottom, but the page asked me to sign the thing. Please remove it. One just cannot reference everything or we would all be writing scholarly reviews. This is COMPLETELY BASIC information. The previous article was written by someone who knows NOTHING and I mean NOTHING about the most basic organization of the pituitary gland. Everything I inserted is basic, fundamental and accepted. Referencing would be impractical and unwieldy. If Wiki went to that level, nothing could be produced. Should I reference a basic textbook? Perhaps the original author teaches only grade school children - she/he has little understanding of this organ. The fact that the pituitary pops off is from direct observation and very, very few people would know that save those in anatomy labs - do you want a photo of the stump after the brain is pulled off? That no one would publish this.

How is it that people outside of the field can write these articles and make these judgements? The original is at the bottom - with all of its faults - clearly not written by someone in the field. ...yes, Wiki is short-handed in contributors I expect, but maybe, if you want quality work it might be worth interacting with a contributor to add references. The "hypothalamus" wiki page doesn't reference the basic facts either. You can contact me at akok@ccbcmd.edu. I suppose i can add some references of a basic text, but do NOT go back to that original text or you will undermine the whole point of Wikipedia. I would NOT want my students to use this to learn from the earlier version - it misses the most basic, basic facts, is confusing, contains inaccuracies, and is misleading.

Wikki must be accurate and instructive. If the authors wished to sound intelligent by citing impressive Latin words (hypothalamic nuclei), then they should balance that level of detail with solid, informative information about the basic organization of this structure. I've been teaching A&P for some 15 years (Loyola College of Baltimore and the Community College of Baltimore County, MD and regularly dissect and photograph human cadavers at the Anatomy Gifts registry (Hanover, MD, USA). I also do some A&P textbook development for a major publisher. Add to that 23 years of being in basic research in cellular and molecular molecular biology of cancers and toxicants, several published papers, book chapters etc etc etc I don't like pissing contests, but perhaps someone should have justified the original nonsense, which is inexcusably poor.

Points:

First, There is a sheet of connective tissue that 'caps' the sella turcica, surrounding the infundibulum, that causes the pituitary gland to pop off from the brain and remain in the sella turcica [that is something I learned by direct observation of human brains being pulled out], so no reference for you there. I do have photographic images of that and am not pulling this out of a "hat".

Second, add to the above that the posterior side is a developmental extension of the hypothalamus - these neuroendocrine cells have their cell bodies in the hypothalamus and release oxytocin and ADH from their axon terminals in the posterior pit. The anterior side is developed from tissue unrelated to the brain and develops in apposition to the posterior side. It is the ANTERIOR side that receives regulatory hormones from the hypothalamus via a special portal system. Hormones on the POSTERIOR side are DIRECTLY secreted from neuroendocrine cells from the hypothalamus. The original article simply blurs the two sides.

The original article names all hormones as "trophic", implying that they are all related to feeding and nutrition. Are you kidding me? This is shameful!

Original text, with in-text critique:

"In vertebrate anatomy the pituitary gland, or hypophysis, is an endocrine gland about the size of a pea [ABOUT A PEA DEEP AND TWO PEAS WIDE] and weighing 0.5 grams (0.018 oz) in humans. It is not a part of the brain.[TECHNICALLY MAYBE, BUT IN REALITY, THE BACK HALF IS] It is a protrusion [ITS ON A STALK THAT GOES THROUGH A LITTLE HOLE, I WOULD NOT CALL THAT A PORTRUSION] off the bottom of the hypothalamus at the base of the brain, and rests in a small, bony cavity (sella turcica) covered by a dural fold (diaphragma sellae) [WITH THAT HOLE I IT]. The pituitary is functionally connected to the hypothalamus by the median eminence [BIG WORD] via a small tube [THIS IS NOT A TUBE!!!! IT CONTAINS A SMALL ARTERY, CAPILLARIES AND AXONS - I HAVE PHOTOS OF THAT TOO - PREPUBLICATION, BUT I CAN SENT THEM TO YOU PERSONALLY] called the infundibular stem (Pituitary stalk). The pituitary fossa, in which the pituitary gland sits, is situated in the sphenoid bone in the middle cranial fossa at the base of the brain. The pituitary gland secretes nine hormones that regulate homeostasis.

The pituitary gland consists of two components: the anterior pituitary (or adenohypophysis) and the posterior pituitary (or neurohypophysis), and is functionally linked to the hypothalamus by the pituitary stalk (also named the "infundibular stem", or simply the "infundibulum" [REPEATED]). It is from the hypothalamus that hypothalamic tropic factors [THIS SAYS THAT THE HORMONES ARE ALL RELATED TO NUTRITION - SHEER NOINSENSE!!] are released to descend down the pituitary stalk to the pituitary gland where they stimulate the release of pituitary hormones. [ONLY FOR THE ANTERIOR, THE PARAGRAPH IMPLIES BOTH - AND THE ANTERIOR EMPLOYS ONE OF TWO PORTAL SYSTEMS IN THE BODY - BUT NOT THE POSTERIOR] While the pituitary gland is known as the 'master' endocrine gland [THIS, IN MY OPINION, IS AN ANNOYING DOGMATIC TERM THAT SAYS NOTHING OF USE TO A STUDENT EXCEPT TO BE ABLE TO REPEAT IT LIKE A PARROT - WE ARE SUPPOSED TO LEARN HERE, CORRECT?], both of the lobes are under the control of the hypothalamus [ONE IS DEVELOPMENTALLY, FUNCTIONALLY AND ANATOMICALLY PART OF THE HYPOTHALAMUS - WHILE THE TERM "PITUITARY" DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THIS, IT IS INSTRUCTIVE TO STATE THAT] - ; the anterior pituitary receives its signals from the parvocellular neurons and the posterior pituitary receives its signals from magnocellular neurons [LOTS OF DETAIL AND BIG WORDS, BUT THE BASICS ARE ABSENT].[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allart1 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Allart. I'm sorry, but I had to revert your contribution again. First, you don't need to sign your post in an article. You only need to sign your post on talk page (like this one). Second, your claims above flatly contradict what you wrote in the article--you say above that this is basic information in every textbook, but in the text itself you said that the information doesn't appear in college textbooks. Both of those can't be true. However, let's say your version is more accurate. If it is, then, don't phrase it in terms of what is or isn't in textbooks--just give us the facts. Finally, and I'm sorry that this frustrates you, but you need to verify the facts that you include with reliable sources. I understand that you are an expert in the field, but the whole point of WIkipedia is that most of its reader's aren't experts. The only way that they can trust information in Wikipedia is by seeing that the information is verified in a reliable source. Even if you could verify your identity (something we generally don't do), we'd still require you to verify your info with reliable sources. I hope that you are can do so, because you seem to have a lot of helpful information to provide. But those sources are what tells both me and a reader that information is accurate, not just your claims of expertise.

I am going to ask at WP:WikiProject Medicine for some other experts to weigh in on this; perhaps they can provide sources to the changes you've suggested. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, fixed up now. Allart is quite correct in his description of the pituitary. The edits by Dr e 79 (talk · contribs) seem to have been pretty much worthless; the reference that was there was about the development of the pituitary and didn't really support what was written, so I removed it and referenced Allart's text to a textbook I had on hand. Choess (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Choess. I simply don't have the content knowledge to fix it, and have to rely on seeing sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. 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) 19:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for consideration.

Hi, Qwyrxian i have seen your recent edit on article Ali. On similar note i just want you to consider on the infobox once again by following the talk on the page Ali. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Maattrraan

Hi Qwyrxian, it seems the war has started up again on Maattrraan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This time between Azad azad azd (talk · contribs) (who I've just warned for edit warring) and a bunch of IPs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hi Qwyrxian,recenty i got rollback rights ,installed and enable Huggle too but didnt understand how huggle works.Is there any instructor or procedure present to learn about it.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The manual is hosted on Mediawiki at [1]. The basic idea is that Huggle watches the feed of all articles being edited. With its default settings, it prioritizes edits that it thinks might be vandalism--edits made by someone who was recently reverted, edits made by IPs, edits of certain styles. When you first open Huggle, push the big blue triangle. Then you'll start to get that running list on the left. In the main window, you can see the diff of the current edit. If you are sure that that edit is vandalism, then you click the big red button with the exclamation point on the upper left. This will automatically revert the edit as vandalism and warn the user. If you want to leave a more specific type of vandalism message (like "blanking" or "spam"), use the drop down menu next to the red button. If the edit is good, then just click the big blue arrow to go to the next edit. If you want to revert, but you don't want to call the edit vandalism (I recommend reviewing WP:VANDAL once more before actually using Huggle), then use the slightly smaller red button; in the middle-left. This will let you revert, and there's a pull-down you can use for customized info. For example, if someone inserts their opinion (like "This is the best movie ever!"), you wouldn't call that vandalism (usually), and instead revert it as unsourced opinion. The other button I use very often is the one that looks like a window, just below the blue triangle and red button. That opens the diff in a new window. I use that if I need to actually look at the article in detail, look at its history, and start editing. You can edit directly with Huggle, but I find the interface to be awkward. Now, some Hugglers don't bother--they basically only revert vandalism, and just pass by all other edits. That's fine, as long as you're not marking things as vandalism when they are not. I just like to fix other problems at the same time. Plus, I've gotten some really unusual topics on my watchlist.

Huggle has all sorts of other features and settings, which are described in the manual. For example, you can change it from pulling a list of all articles and instead focusing on new articles (though it's better to use the new WP:NPP tool for that). The most important thing to remember is that Huggle lets you do things very quickly. And the community says that you are still responsible for all of your Huggle edits. It's easier to mark a good edit as vandalism in Huggle if you're not careful, and if you do that too often, you'll lose Huggle access. If you do make some mistakes, that's okay--just apologize to the user in question and fix your problem.

Let me know if you have more questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for temporarily banning 72.89.157.59. Unfortunately this editor made so many edits on subjects where I have at best scant knowledge that I've had to leave his/her edits intact. Count me among those who think anonymous editors should be restricted to a limited number of edits each day. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you see the same IP address pop up again on articles you watch after the block expires, let me know--I can, if needed, reblock for longer. Sometimes once a person actually gets blocked, they realize that they have to actually talk to other people, and start the necessary conversations. Sadly, sometimes they don't. We'll see what happens here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanx a lot! You are always helpful and responded quickly than anybody else.I tried hand on few edits and i understand how to use it.Thanx again and i wish you all the best for your administratorship.Have a great day! Cheers! ---zeeyanketu talk to me 09:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson follow-up

Hi again, Qwyrxian. You'd said last week that you wanted to take a bit more time to look at the Eric C. Anderson draft I'd proposed; I've made some adjustments based on your feedback, and am open to further changes if you are still planning to look at it. I ask in part because another editor recently voiced support for the draft on the Anderson Talk page. I said thanks, but I wanted to hear out your concerns first. Mind taking a look at it again? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. My brain's shot for the night, but tomorrow morning I'll definitely look. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cheers (season 2)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You just editing my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.208.112 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ali

Do not delete the picture, it provides some encyclodpedic value to the page. While it is not a historical piece itself, it has been created in collusion with many different images of Imam Ali. Many of which appear in many different books, including Shia and Ismali childrens textbooks. Here are but a few examples: http://img-harunyahya.mncdn.net/Image/img_62286_allahin-arslani-hz-ali-rain-hayati-599-661-adnan-oktar.jpg http://f0.pepst.com/c/A65617/10848/ssc3/home/065/zaid.mera.sher-e-khuda.hazratz.ali/hazrat_ali_02.jpg_480_480_0_64000_0_1_0.jpg http://heritage.ismaili.net/gallery/HazratAli/thumbnails/thumb_AliPic1.jpg http://aminah.photovillage.org/photos/1661/HazratAli.bmp.jpg http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/236/1/f/hazrat_ali__a_s__by_alamdardesign-d5cbeht.jpg

As you can probably see, the resembalence between the image you are so desperate to delete and the images that I have posted.

Now I ask you this, if many Shia and Ismali books believe it is appropriate for encyclopedic purposes to include these images of Ali, why is it not appopriate for Wikipedia? The largest online encyclopedia.

Brough87 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no it hasn't. It hasn't been created in collusion with anything. It's a random image made by a random person with out any pedigree (meaning the artwork has no history of being considered an interesting piece of art OR of being an accurate representation of Ali) Until you can provide any (and I mean ANY) evidence that that image has any historical, artistic, or other encyclopedic value, it may not be in the article. There was no response to teh RfC. If you want to discuss the issue further, take the matter to Mediation or abritration. I'm sick of people just saying the picutre is useful with no justification. I'm absolutely sick of it. I'm no longer interested in letting one or two random people hold up removal of a random image without jusification. I did my part by starting the RfC. I will treat further attempts to remove the image as edit warring against consensus. You take it to mediation, or you leave the image off. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it takes 2 to have an edit war, you are just as guilty as I of creating and taking in part in an edit war. Now as for "one or two random people hold up removal of a random image without jusification", that describes you perfectly. You have no justification for the removal of the image, whatsoever. Now you can take it up for mediation, it is not my job to, I am not proposing a change in an existing article. You are making a change, without support of consensus. Until this matter is solved, the picture stays where it is, so I suggest you start mediation processes. Brough87 (talk) 08:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not write on my wall as if you are innocent of Edit warring. You have removed a picture without community consensus on the subject. If you want the debate, lets have the debate! But until such a point where everyone involved has come down on a particular side, the picture stays, as is the policy when it comes to wikipedia. Now I am going to revert your edit; you now have two choices, you engage in a debate with me about the picture or you bring the arguement up with a mod, and we shall leave it for them to decide. It is entirely up to you. I believe strongly that the picture has some encyclopedic value and benefits the article, and seeing as variations of that image appears in Shia and Ismali textbooks, the image should stay.

Brough87 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User 71.233.208.112

I see they finally responded. It's too bad, because I know they means well, but they don't get it. I don't believe any thing I posted violates the WP:Civility or WP:Wikihounding guidelines, does it? I've only been watching them because of their screw ups with the templates and the info-boxes. Was I ever in the wrong, or ever unkind to this unguided person? NECRAT^{Plates On} 02:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe you did anything wrong, at least from what I saw (I didn't track down every edit, though I did look through the IP's contributions before I blocked her/him. If you see an editor making significant errors on an article you were already watching, it's certainly not Wikihounding to go look at his/her other edits to see if it's a general problem. I do that all the time. In fact, you actually tried to be extra helpful, back on September 1 when you left a personalized note in addition to the templates. I think that's one of the best things we can do whenever we come across someone we think is probably acting in good faith (or even when we're not sure), because at least it's an attempt to reach out to the person as a human being. There's really not much more either of us could have done--the edits needed to be reverted, and since the editor wouldn't stop, we had not choice but to block to prevent further disruption. I'm hoping that now the editor will walk away...but that hopefully in a few years xe'll return. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My talkpage

Hello Qwyrxian, just so there is no misunderstanding, I fully support this removal by Dr. K. [2] of the threats left by a nationalist SPA on my talkpage. That was a an attempt at bluster and intimidation, which I would also have removed myself. I don't have the slightest doubt you were acting in good faith, bu the SPA definitely was not. Athenean (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The message didn't seem to cross over to NPA or vandalism, even though it was certainly aggressive, so I figured it was better to leave it there. Glad that the removal was okay, though, and I hope the root problem gets solved easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ali". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 31 October 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

1) This page should not be deleted as its about an Indian actor who acts in television and is about to even do films. References too have been provided and article is in good condition at present. 2)this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil_Kumar_Pathela needs to be blocked for ruining the article with his personal name - see this version- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himansh_Kohli&diff=519344631&oldid=519163252Greatwords1 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

For the Himash Kohli article, if you check it, you'll see that the article is not currently up for deletion. In fact, I was the admin who declined to delete it, as I felt that it was at least good enough to pass our fairly strict speedy deletion criteria. I'm still not certain the person is notable, which is why I added the notability tag, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be deleted. As for the other user, I did block him, in part because of the disruption on Kohli, and for other reasons. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Greatwords1 (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Again another user bonadea has sent me message that the article is again up for deletion. Just advice this user. Greatwords1 (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The user is allowed to nominate the article for deletion. There will now be a 7 day discussion, which anyone in the community may join (it's linked at the top of the article page), which will decide whether or not he meets our requirement that all subjects be notable. Two particularly relevant guidelines are the notability guideline for entertainers and the general notability guideline. You are allowed to comment in that discussion, but please try to keep your comments focused on whether or not the person meets those guidelines. At the end of the 7 days, an administrator will look at the discussion and see if there is a consensus to delete the page, based upon the comments that are made and their connection to our policies. The best thing you can do to support the article, besides leaving a comment on the deletion discussion page, is to find more references that discuss the person in detail. For me, the person is borderline; I'm not sure if I'll comment in the deletion discussion yet myself, either way. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay will provide more references in Talk Page of that Himansh Kohli page. Am i supposed to provide references in some other page? Greatwords1 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The references can go directly into the article. If you want to leave a comment (we often call them !votes, because it's technically not a vote, but it is a measure of consensus), do so at the AfD page, which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Himansh Kohli. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up...

I appreciate the tips on the article but I was planning on moving everything from Samurai Jack#Movie to the new page and delete all text from that section. But I'll read what you told me to and hopefully I'll be a better user. JoyRider (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Instagram

Hi, i am one of the victims of that instagram bug I wrote about... I can provide you instagram users posts and screenshots relating to this issue as others are suffering with it too. We need to make this public in order for instgram to pay attention and fix it. Please allow me to put the bug notice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixinstagram (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're misunderstanding--Wikipedia is in no way affiliated with Instagram. We are a private non-profit encyclopedia. We only include information of encyclopedic relevance. All software has bugs and/or features that some users don't like. We're not here for that. Even if you had a reliable source (which probably doesn't exist), I'm still not sure it should be in the article, because it's really a pretty trivial thing--we're here to give a wide overview of notable subjects. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The bug is affecting way too many people and it is causing so many troubles. I believe it should be mentioned. https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?fromgroups#!topic/instagram-api-developers/RxadeV_C10A. Do you accept this? It is instagram api dev user group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixinstagram (talk • contribs) 12:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No, because 1) that's a primary source--it doesn't show any evidence that independent sources have taken note of the problem, and 2) it's not a reliable source, because forums don't meet our reliable sources guideline. You need a newspaper article or something like that (like a Wired article, or some other online magazine that has a reputation for fact-checking and reliable reporting). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Psyborg Corp

Why did you delete this page ? Did you open a discussion about it ? I was following that page and there's really no reason to quick delete it. In case there was no discussion please restore and open a discussion about its removing. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The page was deleted via a proposed deletion. This is a case where a page which someone things can be deleted uncontroversially is simply tagged for 7 days. During that time, anyone is welcome to remove the tag, after which someone still wanting deletion would have to have a deletion discussion. Since there were no objections, and since I found the nominator's judgment to be sound (there was no evidence that the band is or has ever been notable), I deleted the page after the prod expired. However, one of the rules of prod is that if someone objects after the fact, the deleting admin should restore the article, which I have done. I'lll then open an AfD, on which you can comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, at least some discussion before deletion. I think that the band is really notable inside the cyber subculture. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson, Part III

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at User_talk:WWB_Too/Eric_C._Anderson.
Message added 03:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your help with this article. I had all the best intentions of assisting WWB Too and then got sidetracked. As I said to him, this is one of the best examples of a COI user handling edits the right way. --Drm310 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WWB Too is great. And don't worry on the sidetracking--it always takes me quite a while to look at his requests...mainly because the new versions are always so full that to do a fair job of checking them, I have to commit the time and mental effort to a thorough look. Even though the drafts are basically always better, I think that "our" responsibility (those of us "checking" COI editors) is to thoroughly vet them. Otherwise, if we miss something, then it becomes another random anecdote used to unfairly pummel the very idea of people editing with a COI. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your revisions

Hi Qwyrxian! With all due respect to your perhaps sometimes valuable contributions. You can't observe what's going on in the cited literature and articles about fashion and trends in Germany and Europe. There are several articles featuring this notion, but the Fräulein article is overloaded with references already anyway. But of course we could add another ten. But creating a mess is not what Wiki is all about. So please stop the editwar. Thanks. Have a nice day, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, but you do know that you're not allowed to make a statement that "X is going on in the literature" based upon your own observations, right? Wikipedia calls that original research, and it's not allowed. If, in fact, there is a growing trend to re-use the word, you need to produce a reliable source (a scholarly source would be great, but a journalistic source will likely do) that explicitly states something like "Fräulein is making a come back." Without such a source, the information should not be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The instruction mentality on Wiki tends to be unbearable. And the article is precisely giving the said information. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

KSHATRIYA

Hello, I have deleted some old refs added by user Mayasutra regarding Vellalar because these are details and therefore should be written (already done) in the Vellalar page and also because I have more recent ones which tell the contrary (I have not added them yet). There is no need to write so much lines in the Kshatriya page. Was I right ?Rajkris (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to your post

KidXap is a member of the Alpha Evolution community. I'm not trying to edit-war with him. He removed information that has been on the page for at least a year (even if the source was incorrect - note, that was not me who had posted it, I merely did further research into the matter). Alpha Evolution is starting up again and they're trying to remove any information related to them.

http://forum.alpha-evolution.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=275

Stacia Spradlin of Artix Entertainment sent this email to Alpha Evolution because they were infringing on the copyright laws. I believe that this information about Alpha Evolution should stay, considering that it had been here for quite a while, until KidXap recently deleted it. Staff of Artix Entertainment have also confirmed themselves, that they brought a lawsuit against Alpha Evolution.

Here is Alpha Evolution's original page: http://team.battleon.com/warning/, found using google: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22alpha+evolution%22+%22artix+entertainment%22+&oq=%22alpha+evolution%22+%22artix+entertainment%22+&gs_l=hp.3...62378.62378.1.62595.1.1.0.0.0.0.92.92.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.O6tkuuDsT1c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=e5edf2502d0cf969&bpcl=35466521&biw=1280&bih=596

Click on the second link. The website was removed because Alpha Evolution and its founder were being sued. There aren't any "actual" articles because this was an international copyright dispute. However, information from the official Twitter accounts of Artix Entertainment staff and the information provided earlier should be enough.

Luminitos (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If there are no actual article on it, then we cannot include it. Even if the Twitter feed was considered to be a reliable source (and it probably wouldn't be, per WP:RS), if no newspaper, journal, or other credible reliable source has commented on the case, then it fails WP:UNDUE. Just because a company was involved in a lawsuit does not necessarily mean the information belongs in an encyclopedia article about them. How do we decide? We see what reliable sources are saying. If no one felt it important enough to comment on, it shouldn't be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay then. I also wanted to let you know that I am NOT the person who had been reverting the edits. That is someone else whom I don't know. I remembered seeing the lawsuit on the page in the past and wanted to refer to it, since members of the AlphaEvolution had been complaining to Artix Entertainment on Twitter that they should have the right to talk about their games on the Artix Entertainment forums. Alina (a developer from Artix Entertainment) told everyone who asked what was going on to refer to the Wikipedia article. This all happened recently, hence why other users have been trying to restore the lawsuit section in the article. When a group of players steal the code to the various Artix Entertainment games and then add Alpha to the beginning of everything (AlphaFable, AlphaQuest, AlphaSmash, etc.), other people should be made aware that they are doing so, and that it is illegal to steal other peoples' works. Luminitos (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for breaking into this conversation, but I am not part of Alpha Evolution. Where did you hear that I'm part of it? I only removed the Lawsuit section at first because I believe Artix Entertainment wouldn't want it on Wikipedia. It was being added again so I reverted it back when it did. I clearly did not see any of the things you mentioned happening recently. Yes, I do know that AlphaEvolution used to make private servers and such but they no longer do, and on Twitter they were telling the staff that they no longer do, and they're making their own game projects now. You and one other IP address user were the only ones that were adding it back. I am very sure the things you said were not recent but around at least 2 years old. And yes, I am KidXap, had my Wikipedia named changed to XapApp earlier. -XapApp (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Joshua Project

Is Joshua Project a reliable source for population statistics? There is a user who is challenging this at the Pashtun people article (see [3] and also the talk page). In the page history, I found you commenting on this source and would like to hear your input on this before I plan to join the discussion on the talk page. Or alternatively, you can just give your opinion on the talk page yourself under the thread started by the user. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, the sock has been blocked. Mar4d (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the more general question, no, JP is never reliable for population statistics. The group is a Christian mission, and there is no evidence that they have any expertise in sociology, political science, or any of the other fields that are related to population studies. Furthermore, they have a clear agenda (spreading a specific religion), which could easily result in them over or under reporting certain communities. I vaguely recall that Sitush once dragged up some evidence that they're relying on old, unreliable data, but I don't recall where he said that (or if he even did, for that matter). Unfortunately, he's currently part of the "Wikipedians who are not Wikipedians" refusing to edit in protest over the Arbcom-Malleus-JClemens kerfuffle. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Over here, Q.!

This is my 3rd and last post: you should have a gander at the editing history of the stupid-ass Anorak article. Is that what you people here defend? Is that THE WIKI that everyone worships? Some bunch of petty little teenagers you all turned out to be: damaging good work just because I did it.75.21.103.28 (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)I was Djathinkimacowboy

I have no idea what I'm supposed to see in that article history, given that I have never heard the word "anorak" before and only somewhat know what a parka is. Even if I wanted to help, I can't here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ali, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ali, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Italic title

Hi there, You recently reverted one of my edits. No hard feelings here! But, can you please point me to some WP MOS link which discusses about this. Regards, Lovy Singhal (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing; it turns out it's not actually in the MOS (my mistake); it's in WP:Article titles, in the section WP:ITALICTITLE. ABVP is the name of an organization, so it doesn't meet any of the criteria for italicization in either running text or for the title. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Travel info problem user, again

Remember this fellow? (S)he is probably back: See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and a lot more. Thanks much for your attention GotR ^Talk 20:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the range is too big to block, and it definitely would effect legitimate users. For example, look at the history of Nanjing, and you'll see that while on Oct 23 the spammer used 14.214.79.4, back on Oct 3 a legitimate user used 14.214.72.187 to add Chinese characters. Any possible range block would certainly effect both of these editors. Furthermore, the spamming is very infrequent. Yes, it's irritating that he's hitting so many WP articles at once, but it's not like it's coming in every day on a slightly different IP address. The best thing we can do is 1) if we catch the person while they are editing (or within several hours), warn him/her, report the spamming to WP:AIV and request a block of that specific IP address; and 2) just revert the spamming. I actually watch a fair number of articles that get spamming or other regular violations of policy, but not regular enough to deserve protection. While it's usually used for vandals, WP:RBI is relevant here. Eventually, if the user is constantly reverted, and reverted quickly, either he'll get sick of it or his company will decide it's not a profitable means of advertising. Reverting is fast, the only edit summary you need is "rv spam", and that lets other IPs keep editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastern European sanctions?

No idea what they are. You are the admin, you must know better, no? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's actually more of a socio-political question. All Eastern European articles are under discretionary sanctions; You can see them on the list at WP:General sanctions, and the specific arbitration page is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. The reason I wasn't sure if it applies it that I don't know if Turkey is itself a part of "Eastern Europe". According to Eastern Europe, only the western 3% counts as Eastern Europe; thus, I'm not sure if it applies. It's probably fastest to take it to ANI, and, if someone thinks it belongs at AE, they'll suggest moving it there. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport

Hi, would you please be so kind and explain this move? The native name Aéroport Paris-Charles de Gaulle, and for what reasen do you change that, before I will undo this nonsense? Dont you think you are going to far? Imagine, a little schoolgirl in Africa wants to know s.th. about the Paris airport. Do you think she knows about s.th. like Charles de Gaulle? Its for them also we are doing this Wiki job here. It's time to let arrogance aside. Tell me. Now.--Cruks

I don't know anything about the matter. Another user closed the requested move as having consensus to move to the other name. I merely finished off the task (since there was a redirect in the way, and admin has to do it. I have literally no opinion on the name whatsoever. However, having said that, per our policy WP:COMMONNAME, we don't generally use the "official" name for something. Furthermore, we never care at all what the name of something is outside of English on en.wikipedia. We always look to see what name is generally used in English sources. If you think the closer was wrong to close the discussion that wait, please bring up the matter on his/her talk page. If, for example, you don't think the discussion ran long enough, or that user didn't adequately discern the consensus, then we can revisit the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

I hope you're aware of the edit wars in the Iyengar pg, and the Thenkalai pg which is related to the former. Although the Iyengar page is out of the edit war zone, "User:Ramanujamuni" has been making some controversial edits in the Thenkalai page lately.

• He has added a controversial section to the Thenkalai page - Thenkalai#Spread_of_Thenkalai_Temples
  

And he has cited an unreliable source(google maps) - [12].
The source(which contains only pictures of temples with Tenkalai vermilion marks, and no survey to verify his statistics) was very much edited by the same user. Though i've reverted his edits summarizing the reason in the edit comments, the user undid my revision and left a note in the talk page discussion justifying his source. He didn't provide an inline citation but mentioned the src under external links. Please go through it(since you've been patrolling these pages) and try explaining it to him. He's in no mood to listen to me. Also, the user has been making flaming comments in the talk page by mentioning usernames. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that up at ANI. --Nouniquenames 05:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't often close ANI threads, but somebody had to do it and a lot of people had either already weighed in or were likely WP:INVOLVED in some way rendering them not really appropriate to take action. Plus, the lack of consensus seemed very obvious, as well as the fact that I could not imagine anything good coming from leaving the main discussion open any longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Good close. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)