User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46

I, Me Aur Main

Hi Qwyrxian, could you think to change the protection (pc) to semi-protection since the edits made by IPs has been vandalism. There is no not a single constructive edits by them. Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that Mike V has taken care of it, which is good. I've recently gotten a number of these just recently/soon to be released Indian films on my watchlist, and I keep going back and forth as to whether or not I'm WP:INVOLVED. On the one hand, most of my edits are just removing unsourced info or other actions pretty unambiguously linked to policies, in which case I'm probably safe to protect; on the other hand, I some might argue that I am making editorial decisions, in which case I can't also make administrative actions. Sometimes I get fed up and just protect, but I probably should always leave them to others just in case. To be honest, I really wish that none of the articles existed until after the movies were released, but there are loopholes in WP:NFF that make them possible in some cases. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jason A. Archinaco

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jason A. Archinaco has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Probably advertisement, most of the sources do not mention him or mention him in passing

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cox Enterprises, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aggregator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey man

Toward the end of the ANI thread, there were a few new accounts created by users openly proclaiming themselves to be Barelvis. One of them is cool, one has already been blocked indefinitely and one has made about five edits (all reverted by other users). There's also been a hell of a lot of IP activity by obviously Barelvi anons (all edits reverted as well). I know in the past, my edits have inspired threads on discussion forums for different Muslim sects/movements (usually by Salafis ranting about me, kind of ironic that I was accused of being one of them multiple times). I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it but I thought it was worth mentioning to somebody. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you and I will be doing this forever. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A clerk accepted the CU; I'm interested to see if they'll actually try to criss-cross match all of those different accounts. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

122.163.44.31 should be blocked for vandalism

Hi, We should block the IP 122.163.44.31 for vandalism as it has blanked all section of Saffron terror page twice. --Naveed (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to have stopped. For fast disruption, it's probably better to file at WP:AIV. Technically I couldn't even block here, since I'm WP:INVOLVED on the article, though it would probably be okay since any admin would agree this is inappropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are right. Still i am gonna have a watch on the IP and the next time it vandalizes a page, am gonna report it at WP:AIV. Thanks for the info. Cheers! :) --Naveed (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Alopecia and atomoxetine

Hi there! I see you have twice reverted edits by Lowkeyvision (talk · contribs) attempting to add alopecia as an adverse effect in the Atomoxetine article. Although I do not dispute your reverts, your last edit summary ("that article has nothing to do with atomoxetine") was not quite accurate: the cited article was indeed all about atomoxetine ("Atomoxetine treatment and ADHD-related difficulties as assessed by adolescent patients, their parents and physicians"). Furthermore, there have been many anecdotal reports (and some published case reports) of treatment-emergent alopecia in patients taking atomoxetine, going back at least to 2005. I personally do not feel these merit inclusion in the article pursuant to WP:MEDRS, but this is an issue that merits discussion in the Talk page rather than back-and-forth reverting, especially since Lowkeyvision responded to your first revert by adding a relevant citation. If either of you would like further guidance, feel free to ask at WT:MED or WT:PHARM. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake was that when I copied the URL of the article, I left off the final character, which sent me to an article about gonnorhea. I've self-reverted. As long as the info is sourced, it's fine by me (though I can see why MEDRS might suggest removal, so feel free to start the discussion on talk if you think so). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sajid Khan's Untitled Next

Hi,I proposed an article for deletion here and other user endorsed it with same reason but creator delete it twice without giving valid reason,Is it right to do so.---zeeyanketu discutez 07:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, you shouldn't have reinstated it once. Per the rules at WP:PROD, anyone, including an article's creator. If they do, you have to send it to AfD, which I've now done. The idea is that a prod is "as long as no one contests this, delete it." And the article creator "contested" it. Yes, the article should obviously be deleted, but it will have to go to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, just to be even more clear, you don't even have to give a reason to remove a prod. Some editors have gotten in trouble for removing lots of prods without reasons, but I can only think of 1, and that person was removing hundreds. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Raj censuses

Thought you might appreciate the quote contained in my edit here. Although specifically referring to Sind, he is making a wider point. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fed up with this.

I had an edit conflict and couldn't notice it earlier. Lowkeyvision says:

  1. "These people are using arguments of holocaust deniers."
  2. "This feels like dealing with Holocaust deniers, I swear. " - I find this indescribably contemptible and it is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. You either block him or warn that chap. This mudslinging cannot continue. I am not a holocaust denier. He has issues with hearing others' points. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
He has stated, elsewhere, that I'm an abusive admin, and that I'll use my admin powers to silence him. So, at this point, if any action needs to be taken, it needs to be someone else who suggests it. If you feel the comments are so extreme that the only way to solve it is to get someone to warn or block Lowkeyvision, the best place to ask is at WP:ANI; you may want to try talking to him directly on his user page first. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I have talked a lot with him, don't wish to do it anymore. But if I were an admin I would probably feel it incumbent upon me to warn him about his uncivil behavior. Am I wrong? Talk to him kindly, not for his sake but for civility's sake. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Mrt, where were these comments? --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
They have had a sort of warning from an admin today wrt incivility - accusing me of sockpuppetry and vandalism at Memon people. - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Great. When editors start dragging holocaust denial into discussions, it's usually not a good sign. Hitler will probably make his appearance soon. --regentspark (comment) 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I too am now fed up of it. The situation at Talk:Memon people was bad but the stuff flying around at Talk:Lohara dynasty (and elsewhere on the same basic theme) may well prove to be the last straw. It's a long time since I've had to spend so much time debating something quite as basic as this. I'm going to sleep on raising WP:CIR: I realise that they are new-ish as a registered user but some serious mentoring seems to be needed. - Sitush (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
RP, these comments are in Talk:Saffron terror.
Sitush I empathize with your situation fully. This sort of aggressive obduracy needs to end. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of db-attack template on 漂流瓶-_A_Memoir_in_Chinese

Did you look at [Talk:漂流瓶-_A_Memoir_in_Chinese]], to read my post there before removing the db-attack flag?

Did you check the delete logs to see how many times this same page was speedy deleted in the last few days?

And you didn't leave me a message in my talk page, explaining a rationale for removing the template.

WP:attack says an "attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This article is sourced to a Chinese language book, for which there is no WP:RS translation. Under WP:NOENG, that's very poor sourcing.

And, beyond this, the page isn't even about Bend, Not Break. It's about an entirely different book. Which you would have known had you read the diffs I put in the talk page.

The page in question is intended to disparage Ping Fu. It contains only unverifiable POV, and although the material does not look contentious, it is. If this will help, here is a link to discussions related to this on Amazon: [1]

If we need to escalate this up the conflict resolution process, we should. But blank the page first.

VanHarrisArt (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

But the attack part was easily fixed--just remove all the stuff on the second book. Even if that wasn't an attack section, it doesn't belong there anyway, because that section isn't about the first book. What we need to do is to 1) establish that the first memoir is non-notable (or, if it is notable, make a neutral article about it), and 2) funnel all discussion about the second memoir to the author or the book's talk pages, where we can manage it more clearly. Once we get #1 taken care of, then every future recreation can be immediately taken care of per WP:CSD#G4, and there's no need to debate on being an attack or not. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese

Perhaps my AfD was not needed, but the db-repost was. See User talk:Richewald. Uberaccount (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please re-check the criteria, WP:CSD#G4. It only applies when the original article was deleted as the result of a deletion discussion (WP:AfD), not when it's speedily deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

DJ Earworm

Hi Qwyrxian. Our IP friend is back at it again with the edits, already making 4 since the page opened up again. If they make another (which is highly probable), I think we may have to add the protection back, possibly an indefinite IP block. Just wanted you to be aware again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try one more time-limited protection at 3 months, and see if that's long enough for the anon to get bored and leave; after that, indefinite will be fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Roll back edits

Can u please roll back edits by in the mamon people age. He has blanked almost all sections. --Naveed (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

See my comment on the talk page. While I asked Lowkeyvision to do the digging, you are welcome to do it as well. An editor can insist that the sources be duplicated on any of the duplicated info, so we technically shouldn't just outright revert him without bringing over the sources. I don't have the interest right now in doing that, as it will be fairly extensive work, but someone should. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
That Lowkeyvision story didn't have a happy ending, did it. I'm reading the saga right now. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Logging out for a few days

I'm submitting for a WP:CHUS namechange, if all goes well I'll become "Love Robin" (with or without space; My Prime internet presence). As per instructions, I need to sign off to allow an easy transistion of my Edit History. So I ask if you can keep an eye on the List of Kim Possible Characters for the next week or so, hopefully less. Thank you. — ZigZagStudios (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I can re-add it to my watchlist, but I can't promise much, because I know nothing about the show and thus have a difficult time telling the difference between legitimate improvements and vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for all the help. Seems the process took only a couple hours as opposed to the (I guess CYA) prediction of up to 7 days. Weehee! Finally synced with the rest of my Online Presence! And for my birfd'y too! — Love Robin (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's because only bureaucrats can do name changes, aren't there aren't so many of them, so they want to err on the side of caution. Glad it worked out for you! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Anushka Shetty

Hello again, User:Julian devian has been contuining to add contents in Anushka Shetty which violates both WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP. I also left a note regarding this on user's talk page for some days ago but since then the user hasn't stop his actions. Do you have any suggestions what needs to be done in the article or with the user? Torreslfchero (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears that another admin has blocked Julian. Feel free to let me or that admin know if it resumes. You could possibly report to WP:AIV, though that may not work. The additions aren't "vandalism", though they are wrong; sometimes admins patrolling AIV will still take action if the case is straightforward enough, but sometimes they'll just say you have to go somewhere else. Unfortunately in this case, the "somewhere else" would either be to an admin directly, or to WP:ANI, which is always a bit of work. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. If something like this happens again, I will take this in mind. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling edits vandalism

Understood and apologies to everyone concerned, regarding your mention on my talk page. It is just that the particular editor has been maddeningly and persistently adding his very badly formatted personal views since the last year. Every revert is being reverted back. We have warned him, posted on the articles talk page and everything. I am inclined to believe that this person is involved in that court case which he is quoting every time. In one revert he goes on to threaten that we will be under contempt of court, except that he was wrong. From what you say I should mention reverting of good faith edits in case of reverting any future such edits.--PremKudvaTalk 03:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC) PS: I checked your revert on his revert where he called me "Government Troll deliberately removing the authentic information". Oh man :)

Of course, his comment there was unacceptable. I considered warning him about it, but the first thing I want is for him to stop pushing that info into WP. I am inclined to agree with you, that he is some way involved in the court case, the website, or something in this affair. It's too single-minded and insistent, and the name calling clearly indicates he's taking this personally. I've put both of those articles on my watchlist, so hopefully I'll see if he reverts again. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ali:This is not Hadithpedia

Hi, I removed a lot of hadiths of Ali article bases on WP:ISLAMOR. Please refer to the talk page of the article and write your idea there, if you oppose my edition. Thanks.Seyyed(t-c) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do something about Darkness Shines

See this Talk:Rape_culture#Request for comment II. A perfect demonstration of WP:IDHT. Consecutive RFCs about more or less the same thing are not helpful and it is reeking of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. 3 out of 4 (who opposed the RFC) feel it is an abuse of RFC process and a gratuitous waste of time. Hence, first APL and then I removed template but he reverted both, not only that he removed APL's comment explaining why he felt it was needless and instead of apologizing he is aggressively (i.e. using not-so-polite language) defending his action. Do something. I have interacted with him for quite some time (sometimes productively and other times just wasted my time) and I can tell you that this guy is very passionate and often reeks of dogmatism. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

He is also harassing me with needless discretionary sanctions notice (while pretending to be an uninvolved administrator) as well as redundant and occasionally invalid warnings (he landed one just now). Please talk to him or I might just have to head towards ANI about his overall behavior. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
He has just managed to push forth another RFC, can you believe it? What on earth is going on? See Talk:Rape_culture#Request_for_comment_III. It is now not only bad faith editing but severely disruptive. This should make clear that DS has no interest in working with others. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Pls reply on Gurjar talk page

hi, we were discussing few things on talk page of gurjar article. Please pay a visit when u find time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gurjar thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.62.241 (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll explain.

I realized what I did, and where I was headed towards, and I stopped before I took it any further. The issue (which was different than the previous deal) involved two retired wrestlers who work in the front office for WWE, and have been making something of an in-ring comeback, wrestling more matches (first at house shows, then on TV).

I thought they had been wrestling enough to warrant a place on the roster, but others thought differently.

This is different than before, as to where we had to decide when young wrestlers from their developmental leauge could be classified as part of the main roster.

I tried to explain why I did what I did, but when I realized I was headed down a slippery slope, I quit while I was ahead.

Notice that I haven't touched the article in nearly 20 hours. I got out while the getting was good.

Vjmlhds 20:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you may want to review this discussion in your own archive. I seriously doubt Vjmlhds would have stopped reverting on the WWE page if not for this warning. And I'm not at all suprised that Vjmlhds is again asserting a position without providing reliable source material to support it. Vjmlhds has proven incapable of following the most basic policies and guidelines – even keeping discussions on a single talk page. Increasingly, I see little constructive in what Vjmlhds has to offer. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Vjmhlds, the "getting was good" before you ever added the wrestlers in the first place. You very clearly agreed that there wouldn't be any more "thinking" about what wrestlers go on the list, that you (and other editors) word work strictly off the official lists on the websites. Either you forgot that, or you chose to ignore it. I can't really block you, since WP:BLOCK says blocks must be preventative, not punitive, but the next time I see behavior like this, I will have to assume that you are unable to stop yourself from edit warring, and thus a block will prevent future disruption. Please understand this is absolutely the last warning you will get from me. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Where I made a mistake was that I thought this was a different circumstance seeing as it was retired wrestlers making a comeback, rather than rookies getting called up. If "wait for official lists" applies to all circumstances, then I'm down with that and will abide by it as a "one size fits all" guideline. Vjmlhds 14:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Hi Dear.Input would be appreciated at an RfC and also at an RfC .Please comment. Shabiha (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I was requesting a good faith comment from some editors regarding POV on some of the articles.I am still not sure that in what manner I should have approached for comment? It was an fair attempt to build consensus.This was my bonafide understanding of RFC.Regarding [2] edit,I express my apology ,it was done in total mistake.It just clicked wrongly.I am much thankful for your kind involvement. Shabiha (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Like I said elsewhere, I'm really not believing the explanation Shabiha is giving. He reverted eighteen edits to this version by VIAFbot from before I performed any of them. The ONLY way this could have been done was by intentionally blanking the page and then copy-pasting the version prior to my eighteen edits. I don't know of any other way it can work out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I do believe the explanation, because a single click will do that. If you look at the edit summary, it has a (TW), which indicates it was done with WP:Twinkle. That means he could have done the revert with with a single click, and it could conceivably have been done on accident. It may not have been, but as long as Shabiha understands that he should not do that again in the future (and check to avoid misclicks as much as possible), it's alright. As for the RfC, Shabiha, please look at my explanations on the article's talk pages. If they don't make sense, please ask, but the point is that your RfC asked a question which every editor is required to answer "yes" to, and which doesn't tell you anything about how to edit teh article. That is, someone can/should say yes, but they still might disagree entirely with whatever edits you're proposing. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I will seek your advise in future regarding use of wiki policies.Thanks. Shabiha (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha going rogue

This is getting a bit out of hand; Shabiha, as of today, has now engaged in what appears to be canvassing, opening RfCs without seeking prior comments (that issue is smaller I guess), and what is absolutely a clear case of vandalism.

1. The canvassing appears to be an attempt to garner more attention for his RfCs here, here, here and here in addition to the comments on your own talk page. I'm not the most familiar person with the canvassing policy, though the issue was initially rasied by DeCausa here.
2. On Talk:Salafi, Shabiha opened a (valid) discussion about POV issues with the article here, yet he opened an RfC for the issue here only three hours later, before anyone disputed his concerns or even responded at all.
3. On Talk:Wahhabi, the same issue occurred with Shabiha expressing some (again, valid) concerns here yet opening an RfC here about one hour later, again before any dispute arose or any comments were even made.
4. This next one is a doozy and is not only vandalism, but appears to be an attempt to harass me personally. In addition to editing Islam-related articles (where I am just a hobbyist/novice), I am also a subject matter expert in the field of technical communication. If you check the history page for JoAnn Hackos, a notable person in our field, you will see a number of constructive edits and adding of sources in which I engaged yesterday. With no explanatory edit summary or even talk page comments, Shabiha blanked all of my edits and copy pasted an old version of the page. It might seem like an error to someone who doesn't know the history of our disputes, hence my coming to you first before creating an actual ANI report.

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I really think this issue is something you have the power to solve. The Islam-related articles are just bumbling and inappropriate (at least in my view); his edits to Hackos' article is pure, unadulterated vandalism and I really feel a serious block is in order to send a message that this isn't acceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've intervened in the RfCs and left comments for Shabiha on his talk, though I'm not looking into the underlying dispute. But I've got the pages on my watchlist. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think the JoAnn Hackos issue warrants further action, or let it go? It seemed like the bigger issue to me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

PA on Me

Dear ,I think, calling me Rogue and accusing me of ,an attempt to harass me personally by MezzoMezzo amounts to Personal Attacks,when there was none from my side? What do you think? Shabiha (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you'd best not try to stir up trouble given your recent conduct on the articles. Those RfC's either demonstrate a battleground mentality or a significant lack of comprehension about Wikipedia policies or English. If you try to pursue some sort of sanctions against MezzoMezzo, you're almost certainly going to end up sanctioned yourself. I'm not taking action myself because I think you may be acting in good faith, but I am concerned. Both the way you opened the RfCs and the question you asked are a problem. I think you want to focus on that. Again, if you don't understand what was wrong with those RfCs, please ask, because it's pretty important that you see why they weren't helpful. As to the specific wording MezzoMezzo used, "going rogue" is a way of saying "taking actions that are not appropriate and questionable", which is an accurate description of the RfC's, and I hope you can also see how the revert did look like harassment, even if it was not. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Trouble has been stirred, though perhaps not shaken. Man I would never want to be an admin. I don't know how you guys do it, and without complaints, no less. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I accept your kind and beneficial advise.I took the literal meaning of rogue which means,a dishonest or unprincipled man,I am sorry for my complaint.Kindly help me in understanding which types of questions would be proper and relevant? Shabiha (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

NPA problems

See User_talk:Pnranjith#March 2013, where that blogged attack has been raised today. Odd, really, given that blog entry originated in a dispute concerning Nair, with whom the Ezhavas have a rocky relationship! - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Do not create hoaxes. 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) 05:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi

I'm sorry man. I know it must be a drag every time you see a message from me, but this is an issue where I do need advice. Msoamu is stonewalling over on Talk:Barelvi. A few editors have supported my proposed changes, and they were mostly supported by sources either from mainstream media or academic publishers like Brill. Yes on every single point, Msoamu disputes the insertions with literally nothing more than comments like "the sources are wrong," "the sources are not neutral" or, in one case, simply accusing me of editing to prove a point and trying to promote my personal views.

I've put a lot of work into improving this article, as have other editors. It's not fair to editors or to readers that the followers of a religious movement are allowed to simply dominate an article and remove anything remotely negative, and it's clear that this is Msoamu's aim. The problem is, that won't be clear without someone reading the discussions on the talk page, and that will take time; some admins and mediators might not want to do so. Do you know what I can do to take this to the next level and have a serious look at what Msoamu (and to an extent, Shabiha) have been trying to promote on the article's talk page? This has been ongoing since early February and it seems that Msoamu is content to just revert any contrary edits and say "the sources are biased." MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it the whole page I need to read, or certain sections? I'll look into it, but it will take a little time and I want to make sure I'm focusing my inquiry. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh man, you're making me feel guilty for asking if you're now offering to do it yourself. Alright, get ready for a migraine. Well...the main part of the discussion involving me, Msoamu, Shabiha, Lukeno94 and GorgeCustersSabre is section seven of the talk page, along with the following subsections:
7.1 History
7.3 Lead
7.5 Presence
7.6 Beliefs (along with the two subsections; additionally, some of what I'm suggesting there was suggested by other editors about half a year ago in section 2 Shrine and grave worshipping)
7.7 Relations with other movements along with its subsection
7.8 Sectarian violence
7.9 Assassination
9 Suggestions (nothing of substance but indicative of the tactics currently being employed)
Look man, if you're too busy for this then I understand; a quick look at your contribs reveals a lot of valuable work which you're performing. If you want to simply pass on the info to someone else or some mediation committee, then I wouldn't resent that at all (though obviously you being an admin and someone who has prior knowledge of the dispute would be preferable simply for expediency). I just want someone to take a look at this; it seems Msoamu is content to indefinitely dispute every single source which contradicts his beliefs, no matter how much anyone else tries to neutralize the specific wording of the accompanying content. So far, this has been a successful tactic for him because by doing so, he has prevented any edits contrary to his views from sticking for months. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I'll take a look at it, and if it feels like too much for me, I'll pass it on to someone else. Actually, given what you describe, that's almost certainly what I'm going to do anyway. If your description is accurate, it sounds like you (the involved editors there) need to move on to noticeboard discussions, possibly mediation, maybe an RfC/U if the problem is a particular editor. I'm probably not going to start reading today, but I'll advise when I can. One thing you can do sooner, if you want, if the dispute is over specific sources being reliable or not, is to take them to WP:RSN; it's a great way to get a really solid opinion on whether or not a source is usable. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll review the rules about RSN today. I might want to wait until you at least take your initial look, though; I want to do this right, without any policy blunders on my end. I'll wait until you're able to either comment on the situation, or pass it on to someone else (preferably another admin). Obviously it's been a few months of this stonewalling, so it's not some sort of pressured rush that must be completed in a day. Thanks again for offering to take a look. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
This might be a silly question considering that you're help is requested everywhere, but have you had a chance to look into this one? Should I move ahead with RSN or anything like that, or continue on the article's talk page? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I ended up busier w/non-Wikipedia stuff than I expected, and only stamped out fires here. I'll really make an effort to get to it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Dude don't be sorry, what's wrong with you. Like you said, this site isn't as important as real life. If you're too caught up right now then I can take it to Bbb23 (I'm sure he'd love that, haha...) or another admin. Or even one who has no prior involvement. Like I said I think your familiarity with the conflict allows you to cut to the bottom of this quickly but I don't want to burden you, either. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I've now scanned down through 7.6, and I've seen enough that I think the course is clear. Make the edits you think are needed. Msoamu and Shabiha provide little to no policy based rationale for their objections. I'm not saying that your versions are correct, as I've not read the underlying texts, but I can say that your explanations are clear and policy based, and the objections are not. Make the changes slowly--say, no more than one section of the article every 2 days. Part of what seems to be making you frustrated here is simply the fact that Msoamu doesn't edit as fast as you do. That doesn't mean you need to wait on him for "approval", but since this is obviously a long term issue, going a little bit slowly at the beginning at first is fine.
Start somewhere other than the lead, since the lead should summarize the article, and thus it's difficult to shape the lead until you know what the rest of the article says. Also, it's the part that requires the most editorial judgment since its the most "synthetic" portion of the article, and thus the one most likely to cause disputes. Instead, start with whatever you think is the most certain and necessary change—one well founded in sources, and where the current article is somehow lacking in NPOV or V. Make the change, explain it on talk (just start a new section at the bottom, linking back to prior discussions as needed). Then wait awhile and see what what happens. If there's reverting, I'll advise from there based upon the response. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Crap, I already did the edits a day ago before seeing your comments here. You're right, part of it is because I leave aside some time for Wikipedia almost every day, and Msoamu and Shabiha don't; I guess that made me a little impatient. I did post more on the talk page with every single edit, though, in addition to a general post after completing the edits in section 9 of the talk page. My main rationalization was the lack of qualitative, policy-based opposition. So far, nobody, not even the editors who agreed with my edits, have commented. What would you advise at this point? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I recommend leaving your changes in place, then if someone reverts (which would not be unreasonable), then proceed with the plan above. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We have what appears to be a wholesale reversion of every edit here, along with some weird comments about me changing the page to suit my "POV" and treating it like a battleground. Given the amount of discussion on the talk page, he might not be able to respond quickly so it will be interesting to see where this goes. Not really sure how he's going to argue against the sources from Time magazine, Princeton U. Press, W. Post, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, like I said above, I can actually understand that reversion. So, I recommend that you start a new section on talk (explain that the prior discussion was so complex you need to begin anew, more focused), state exactly one section that you're going to edit (again, choosing based on the criteria I said above), then edit just that once section. Now if that gets reverted without a specific explanation, then Msoamu has something to answer for. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Jumped the gun again, didn't I? Alright, hopefully the suggested method will smooth things out. Let me take a look at the sections on talk, and then I'll pick one and just start a new section for it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
And it starts. I explained why I would reinstate one section on Talk:Barelvi. I made the edit, hit "save page," and found that GorgeCustersSabre had already reverted Msoamu's reversion, giving a brief comment on the talk page. Msoamu then reverted for a second time, this time a reversion against GorgeCustersSabre, claiming that the views in the edit are biased and that Gorge (or me? I don't even know at this point) needs to participate in discussion first...which Gorge and I both did before Msoamu's second revert. Msoamu has now responded, though in the history section instead of the new section. I'm going to be honest, most of it is just posting links to Barelvi websites in order to "prove" that the sources I provided (which include Princeton University Press) wrong. I was goign to reinstate one section, though now Gorge seems to think all my edits should be reinstated. I'm going to sit back actually. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say before I act again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work

Hi,
Nice work on Farmers' suicides in India! bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There's probably a lot more that needs to be done on that article, but I just don't have the time/energy to spend going through all of it. Feel free to hack and slash as needed! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi Article

I was in discussion mode.MezzoMezzo's proposed changes were much lengthy and time taking.It was not reasonable to insert that much of content with out consensus.Msoamu (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe you two misunderstood each other. And that's why I said that I understood why you were unhappy and reverted all of the changes. So, the easy way to proceed is the way I suggested: work on only one suggested set of changes at a time. I do have to add one more thing though: please do be sure that you understand that consensus does not have to mean 100% agreement, and it does not me that people have to compromise with respect to Wikipedia policies/guidelines. But I do strongly support the use of discussion and dispute resolution if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Reaper Eternal

Hey, just wanted you let you know that you may have misclicked when you were protecting this. You've removed the sysop-only move protection, without actually adding any edit protection. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

http://www.chinnajeeyar.org/main/content/
The above link is a dot org it is no blog. .org Chinna Jeeyar is a well renowned Hindu Pontiff.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinna_Jeeyar_Swamy

Please see on the same Tirumala Temple article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirumala_Venkateswara_Temple#Ramanuja The last two lines.

The sources given are genuine enough. No one until now has questioned these sources as citations. RTPking (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it's not a blog, but it's still a self-published source that does not meet WP:RS, because it does not have an editorial staff with a history of fact-checking. And the second is certainly a blog. As such, there is no doubt whatsoever that the second fails WP:RS, and I feel pretty strongly that the first doesn't either, though I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Username

Hi,Qwyrxian,I request you to change my user name from zeeyanketu to "zeeyanwiki".Thanx---zeeyanketu discutez 06:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi zeeyanketu, you have to request this to a bureaucrat or request it on changing username. T4B (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like it's been solved. Thanks for providing the info, Tolly4bolly. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Srikalahasti Temple

Hi, I remember you had delt with User:Eshwar.om previously. Have a look at the above mentioned article, does it require two indic scripts? Also the same person has removed indic scripts in the article Padmanabhaswamy Temple. Does it not violate the NPOV? Have a look at this revision, it has been mentioned that User:Eshwar.om has corrected the things which were vandalised by User:RTPking, I dont see anything odd with those edits. Can you please have a look? ShriRamTalk tome 07:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the Indic scripts on both articles, and will leave Eshwar.om a comment regarding the use of the word "vandalism". Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Good work. Thank you. ShriRamTalk tome 13:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Hassanfarooqi

Shouldn't they be blocked for yet another abusive comment (ie, the one you restored to the talk page)? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I didn't look at them closely. I've reverted the restoration, but I'm too tired at the moment to make a good judgment call as to whether or not they deserve blocking. If you think action should be taken, try asking another admin; otherwise I'll have to worry about it tomorrow if I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem, I'm not in a rush to act, after all, Hassan did redact the abuse, not that it shouldn't be sanctioned. We all make mistakes :) Lukeno94 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution other than RfC

It's clear at this point that this is no longer an issue of Msoamu not editing quickly, because he does when he's motivated. I'm not going to talk about his intentions, but it's clear from his deletion of sourced yet negative content while inappropriately crying for policies while also contradicting given sources when wording his edits that his behavior is becoming disruptive. I don't think his language skills or knowledge of policies are an excuse as his errors have been explained to him enough times by enough people for him to truly understand. Again, I don't care about his intentions; he is clearly misusing site policies for whatever reason and engaging in the same behavior with no changes since January.

To be honest, I'm not inclined to start an RfC. First of all, those are open for 30 days and I don't think it's fair that one single editor can hold up every single change for a month each time. Wikipedia really shouldn't bend to the will of one editor, much less a disruptive one. Second of all, he's not listening to me, he's not listening to you, he's not listening to Lukeno, he's not listening to GorgeCustersSaber...he's not listening to anybody. I can honestly envision him continuing his behavior even after an RfC thus rendering that process fruitless.

What I want to ask is: is there another means of dispute resolution which will (a) take less time and (b) send a stronger message to Msoamu regarding this behavior? I'm going to be honest, he's done good things recently on the Dawat e Islami article, but on Barelvi I've never seen anything positive or constructive from him. I'm not using hyperbole to make my point; I stand by the literal meaning of that statements and would (theoretically, this doesn't serve an actual purpose) review every single edit he's made to the article to prove it. He's basically blocked anything positive from going on there if it risks showing the movement in anything less than a 100% positive light and what we're doing now, like what we've tried before, just isn't working. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Im not at all misusing any site Policy,I have accepted first proposed para of MezzoMezzo with neutral language.Does that I meant MezzoMezzo is free to propose any thing he wish and I can't propose for neutalising his language.When he sayd Barelvi movement is suffered by Intolerance and radicalism, I said, include other views that they are considered Peaceful and Moderate by and large.He did not do it rather used all sources with out actually neutralizing language.Kindly look into discussions.Not agreeing to 100% with MezzoMezzo's edits does not mean I have done something wrong.Intentions are judged by actions,he always emphasized on criticism of Sufi Articles, not on improving them.Msoamu (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Msoamu, you're clearly pushing a POV here. You're selectively using sources to focus in on positive commentary, and misusing other policies (like WP:NOTNEWS, which you still obviously haven't read) to try to justify removal of negative commentary. MezzoMezzo, I think the solution is fairly simple: edit the article so that it is neutral and well sourced. If other editors agree with you, then they will also edit to keep your version. Then the burden is on Msoamu to start whatever dispute resolution method you prefer. It's not up to the 3 editors supporting a version to convince the 1 person against it, but rather up to the 1 person against to try to change consensus. Msoamu, if you really think there's a NPOV problem with MezzoMezzo's version, try discussing the matter at WP:NPOVN. It's possible that you are, in fact, right; I don't have the interest in pouring through dozens of sources to see if MezzoMezzo is, in fact, unfairly highlighting the negative, but a quick reading lends me to think he's more likely in the right here. But it's up to you to make the effort to show the problem, since 3 different people are arguing against you. That means if you just keep reverting, you're edit warring against consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience with both of us. After you made this comment, he not only continued reverting but did so without discussing it on talk, instead posting on the talk page "why are you talking mezzomezzo?" and expressing that he's not interested in hearing my opinion. I reverted him back as I felt it's inappropriate for him to revert without even giving a reason why. It seems to be the correct way to handle things; I hope this works out. Whether or not consensus falls on my side, thanks for your (Qweryxian's) continued attention to the issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

New Spain and etc

Could you please put these pages back on semiprotection. The blocked editor had returned almost immediately after the protection ended. Edward321 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I just protected 5 articles; is that all of them? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If I spot more, I'll let you know. You might also ask Enric Naval if he knows any other articles that need semi-protection. The latest IP, 88.27.63.130, had started following me to other articles[3] but I see you have blocked them. Edward321 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Images in the article Ali

Hi Qwyrxian! I understand that the topic might no longer interest you, since it's been a few months since you last discussed it, but I wanted to ask for your opinion about the inclusion (or lack thereof) of images in the article Ali. From what you wrote about the issue on the article's talk page, one of the determining factors for the removal was the lack of a free image with "some sort of historical provenance or can be shown to be a widely used image for Ali". I don't know about the historical provenance, but depictions of Ali are ubiquitous in Shia-majority countries like Iraq and Iran (as you can see in these pictures: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]). Going back in the history page to the time of the discussion I found that a similar image (File:Mola Ali.jpg) was included in the article at some point. If it was removed because these images are copyrighted, shouldn't the file on commons be deleted as well? And if it was removed because they are only used among Shias, should they not be included in Shia view of Ali? Thanks for your help!--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't look at the underlying history, but that image was not removed because of copyright, but because I spent a lot of effort to get it removed. That picture has absolutely no business being in any Wikipedia article. The image was (according to its information) painted by a Wikipedia user. There is no evidence that it matches any legitimate description of Ali, evidence of fame...ultimately, no evidence of any educational value whatsoever. If someone can find a legitimate image with some aesthetic, historical, religious, or other significance of Ali, then we could probably find a space for it somewhere, perhaps even in the lead of that article. But a random image by a random Wikipedian is of no value...it's literally exactly as useful as me drawing a stick figure and claiming that's Ali. I have no objection to the underlying idea of using an image, but it needs to be one with some sort of pedigree. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your info Qwyrxian.i will follow in my upcoming edits.Thanks for your support.Eshwar.omTalk tome 06:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again and thanks for your reply! I did try to look for the mediation you mentioned in your December message, but all I could find was the page saying that the mediation request was accepted. Anyway, even if that picture is the creation of a Wikipedian it's clearly a derivative work of sorts (it's almost identical to this image) so the copyright matter could be relevant, even if I agree that it should not be used in articles. I tried to find a depiction of Ali that is similar to the archetype commonly used in Iran/Iraq today, but these are mostly the work of living artists, so they can't be uploaded on here. I uploaded some earlier Qajar era images like this and this one (and a few more in the commons category), but I'm not sure which (if any) should be included in the article. Let me know your opinion! Cheers,--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I definitely support the inclusion of one or more of these images. Since this is a matter that should probably be discussed by more editors than you and I, could you open a thread on the talk page? We don't want to add too many images, and we'll have to figure out where to put them, but I'm sure that some of them are worthwhile. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to bring up an ANI regarding Shabiha now

It never stops, but Shabiha is really getting out of hand. As is evident from his contributions:

  • He was reverting edits at Sufi-Salafi relations and at least had the decency to discuss things at first. Now he's just reverting without even bothering to discuss things as is evident from the time stamps at the article's talk page. What's worth, he's blatantly lying in his edit summaries; he's reinserting a bunch of sources which don't even mention the subject, and according to his edit summary "all of the sources mention it." It's as though he's counting on no third party actually taking the time to read the sources to see the truth.
  • He's still calling me a Salafi even though I've made it clear multiple times, in multiple discussions, that I'm not Salafi, I don't agree with their ideology and I don't appreciate being branded as one.
  • On Salafi, he literally just reverted the work of multiple editors despite not having participated in discussion on Talk:Salafi for five days. Of course he was reverted and asked to return to talk first, as two editors are currently disputing his edits there (not me, I actually agreed with many of Shabiha's edits in this case). When I told him he should discuss instead of edit warring due to the final warning, he launched into a series of personal attacks on me on that talk page, to the point where another editor had to tell him to cool it.
  • On Barelvi, not only did he try to edit war against consensus, but his reply to Lukeno on the talk page was to simply deny that a new consensus has been formed.

It seems like more rogue behavior once again, and just like before, given your prior knowledge of the final warning and all the surrounding issues, I think it might be more effective for you to be the one to tell him to calm down. The edit warring (I'm not the only one who has described it that way) across several articles, in addition to the continued personal attacks on me even when having discussions with other editors, are really getting old. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've focused in on one specific matter on his talk page. Let me see what happens from there. You can take the matter to ANI, but I recommend waiting, because I think it's likely that it will become a great big mess that won't result in action...yet. But Shabiha's answers will help figure out exactly what the problem is (English, stubbornness, true legitimate disagreement). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Your advice has proven the best alternative before, so I'll wait and see. Seriously though, with comments like this, it seems like he might not stop...I can see an ANI becoming a bloated mess again, though. Hmm. Yeah, I'll just wait then, as I suppose I don't really know what to do. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrxian,non neutral edits are basically point of concern.I have clearly replied MezzoMezzo on all talk pages and just now on Sufi Salafi relation page that what Saudi Salafi connection is there.He is just removing any valid sourced content from that article to which he has tried to delete in recent past unsuccessfully.Read official announcement from the Saudi government here.*“My brothers, you know that true Salafism is the path whose rules derive from the book of God and the path of the Prophet…This blessed state (Saudi Arabia) has been established along correct Salafi lines since its inception by Imam Mohammed bin Saud and his pact with Imam Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab.Saudi Arabia will continue on the upright Salafi path and not flinch from it or back down,” Prince Nayef told the conference participants.[1].[2]

[3].He has no answers but baseless biased objections. Shabiha (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As MezzoMezzo already told you, using that as the basis of your reverts is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot say that because one prince said that Saudi Arabia should be Salafi does not suddenly 1) make it true, or 2) make it true for everyone, or 3) change the fact that you're conducting WP:OR. If the sources do not explicitly mention Salafism, you cannot pretend or interpret that they do. You will need to stop the edit warring immediately or you will be blocked. In the meantime, please read WP:OR. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me actually clarify: if you can find multiple, completely independent (i.e., non-Muslim academics) who directly and clearly state that all Saudi Islamic activities are Salafi, then your edits might be justified. But it needs to be absolutely crystal clear, not just one persons' opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not just about all Universities.Universities might not officially declare their ideologies,but govt.departments and their sub departments can be taken as proof.No Problem,I will not revert the edits for now.It is not one prince saying, it is govt of Saudi Arabia, confirming in these words ,Saudi Arabia will continue on the upright Salafi path.Minister is not saying they should rather they will continue.There is large and big difference between both.The official and dominant form of Sunni Islam in Saudi Arabia is commonly known as Wahhabism (a name which some of its proponents consider derogatory, preferring the term Salafism[197])on this Article.Saudi Arabia#Religion.Islam in Saudi Arabia Says,When the modern kingdom was established, Salafism became the only brand of Islam espoused by the government. The Saudi government hosts multiple international Islamic organisations and uses its government arms to propagate the Salafi brand of Islam worldwide. The King of Saudi Arabia is considered the guardian of the two mosques, considered the holiest in Islam, of Mecca and Medina. The majority of the fifteen to twenty million Saudis are Salafi Muslims, an orthodox movement within Sunni Islam.U.S department of State Muslims who do not adhere to the officially sanctioned Salafi (commonly called "Wahhabi") tradition can face severe repercussions at the hands of the Mutawwa'in (religious police).It is established fact that Salafism is officially religion in Saudi Arabia its Scholars follows it and proudly accept it.Officially Prayer leaders and religious police,religious department follow Salafism.They daily confronts Sufi followers and stop them praying at various places,they stop Shia community.They are doing many things which directly affecting Sufi Muslim community who come there on religious pilgrimage.Moreover their direct funding to Salafi fighter is also major step in Salafi Sufi relations. Shabiha (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Shabiha, I'll make one observation here. Toddy1 went to the trouble of identifying at Talk:Salafi the specific issues with your recent deletions in 11 sub-threads. Various points were made to you on the specifics of those deletions and you engaged with each of those sub-threads. 10 of those sub-threads have specific points which you have not yet answered and have been outstanding since 10 March (in the case of points 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) or 12 March (in the case of points 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8). However, since 10/12 March you have found the time to revert an edit to the Salafi article, and make 2 other posts to the talk page: one criticizing MezzoMezzo and the other is a generalized complaint about "bias". A more productive way forward would be for you to re-engage with the 10 outstanding specific issues. DeCausa (talk) 12:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, we have clear instances of edit warring now. Over on Talk:Sufi-Salafi relations, Shabiha repeated the same exact conspiracy theories and original research which you had already explained were original research, as had one other editor.
However, while Shabiha was arguing for the "Saudi = Salafi" thing, he actually didn't reinstate those edits. He's now reinstating the edits which you had spot checked yourself. Aside from this being an obvious violation of WP:3RR, it also seems to be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't know why Shabiha didn't just reinstate the "Saudi = Salafi" argument again since that's what he was pushing on the talk page; it almost seems irrational.
Anyway, he's violated 3RR and is editing disruptively, even after both you and at least one other editor already explained this mistake to him. I admit that I'm involved so I'm sure I'm as biased as anyone else would be, but this really seems like a clear violation of the final warning, in addition to repeated attempts on the part of Toddy, DeCause and yourself to calm him down. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)