User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Ghazal's book cover image

Doesn't NFCC only apply to non-free content? (Note the change in license terms, which I'm in the process of double-checking, but yes, it is my understanding that the author is the publisher, owns the cover copyright, and is willing to license CC-BY-SA 3.0. I'm also quite open to the idea that I'm completely off-base, please apply any necessary clue here, thanks.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about that. I guess we'd need to answer two key questions: first, does Omid herself hold the copyright on the book and cover image? I can't access Amazon from work, but if we can determine from the book who owns teh copyright on the book, that's a start, though even if we determine that she holds the copyright on the book, we need to be sure that the cover image isn't separately licensed (the copyright pages of the book, if available, should answer that). However, even if that's the case, we'll need clear confirmation from OTRS that she released it; I see she put an OTRS number on the file page, but not the template; I 'll try to figure out how to do that. In the mean time, I've self-reverted the removal of image; technically, it would probably be safer to leave it off, but I don't want to appear to negative on this article (I'm the main contact that the person claiming to be Omid herself has on WP right now, and I've had to turn down many of her requests as not meeting our verification or NPOV policies; I genuinely want to help her, but it's the normal problems we have with people wanting to be involved in making sure their pages contain the Truth). I'll try to look more into this later.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you the OTRS volunteer who processed the request? I thought that more clear info was given on the file description page after the OTRS is processed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm new at OTRS and it's entirely possible likely that I've mucked that up. (I'm off to bed, but hope to have more info in the morning.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. I am now confortable that the author has given the appropriate license and understands what that means. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me. I'm happy to have it so long as the publisher isn't going to come at us with a DMCA. And I see that you have the full template up on the image file, so everything looks peachy-keen. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop your pre-stalking at once

Every time I go to revert vandalism, you've just done it 2 seconds earlier. I was thinking of reporting you, but of course your plan would be to warn them 2 seconds before I make such a report. Ooooooooooooooooooooooo! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this indicates that I am paying too much attention to my watchlist and not enough to my actual job. Okay, I'll try to give you at least 15 minutes or so while I do something "productive"--have at it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you know I'm kidding. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course! It is oh so very hard to resist checking my watchlist all the time, though.... Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The same goes for me when I tried to revert occasional vandalism from various articles, but either one of you have done it before me several times, although I did manage to get a few vandalism reverting of my own. CHAK 001 (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CHAK: It sounds like you're having trouble finding vandalism to fight. Lots can be found among the normal edits here:

• User creation log
• New user contributions

Don't forget to auto-add them to your watchlist. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to put in a solid night of whack-a-vandal, try Huggle. Pretty much the fastest thing around, except for Cluebot. Not something I like to do too often, but sometimes its nice to do something that no one will deny is good for the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I used to use it. Fast! Then the GFW decided to block it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: The POV-title tag

Check here and the definition of that tag. I hope you are not trying to get advantage of the status quo by refusing the tag when there exists such drastic dispute over the Japanese title which we have strongly and reasonably proved a POV one. --Lvhis (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me just mention to (congratulate?) you, that you are extremely good at pushing my buttons. I started a really angry response to this this morning, but luckily I saved it rather than posting it immediately. Please, it would be so so great if you could stop assuming that everything I do is done with some sort of ulterior, sinister motive. That stance (note that it's one that's held by people on both sides of this issue, not just you) is one of the bigger problems we had.

For example, regarding this issue, I'm not trying to take advantage of anything at all. As you know, I was the first one to support the addition of the tag from the "Senkaku" side, a long time ago. And I note that another admin has put the tag back now--I have absolutely no problem with that at this moment. To me, the process is still ongoing (it wouldn't shock me if we end up at some new forum, possibly ArbCom), so if an admin wants it on, and MedCom isn't going to fight it, so be it. I even think STSC asking AGK nicely to put the tag back was fine, as that was a private action that simply asked for the prior situation to be returned. However, I believe that using an edit-protected request would be a direct violation of what AGK asked us to do: "we respectfully ask that the parties abstain from all activities relating to this dispute, which would include editing the Senkaku Islands article, and interacting with the parties on other pages". And now I realize I compounded your mistake by one of my own--I didn't notice that I wasn't supposed to be contacting you on your page, either. My apologies there.

So, since we're not supposed to be talking, I will simply finish with this: all I want, all I have ever wanted, is to come to some sort of working consensus decision on the name. I have a personal belief about what that name should be, and I have before and will continue to argue in favor of that. I reserve the right to change my own belief--I learned some very important things in the Mediation so far that effect my belief on how we should figure out the right name. In fact, I hope that everyone involved in the process is open to changing their beliefs--otherwise, I don't really know why we're bothering with mediation. I am not trying to use any tricks, I am not trying to change the rules, I am not trying to take advantage of anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sincerely hope you have been cooling down. As you have admitted, you first went to my talk page and left message that I could also complain as pushing my buttons. I doubt if you really and carefully checked here to read the conversation between Feezo and me, and what Feezo suggested. Anyway, I did express my appreciation for several times when you demonstrated your correct or almost-correct construing the POV-title tag. But it was not the 1st time that you took a wrong stand towards such kind of tag, see here. As I said in Feezo's talk page, as long as there exists a dispute over the title no matter which is or will be, the tag shall be on. It would not be worth contacting other users in their talk pages if you could have correctly interpreted and treated that kind of tag. Let us drop this issue. As for the name/title, the grounds you used for your argument were wrong. If you try to find out some way new and change your ground, that will be a different story. Take care. --Lvhis (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dimbeswar Neog

I didn't weigh in on Dina Wadia because I was on the fence. Here is a similar situation. If you have a view either way, please say. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I added two sources; since they're from India's national Academy of Letters, and both call him notable, I think that's probably enough to establish notability. I can comment in the AfD; however, you may want to consider withdrawing it at this point given the improvements. His name seems to show up in a number of other books on Indian literature; none seem to be super-in depth (he is, after all, a critic), but some of them could probably be added. If you want to keep the AfD running, let me know and I'll comment in it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindu terrorism cats

At this point, should we just go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard in order to deal with this issue? It's not going to end otherwise. Silverseren^C 05:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, although I've never actually used DRN. In the past, in similar situations, I've always started an RfC; either way should be fine, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Dear Bm gub2 thank you for adding to the Santilli's page the section on Lawsuits. Several people who have a grudge against arXiv have written to us asking how we were successful in having the objectionable articles removed by arXiv! You were able to add the web site on the Committee on Scientific Ethics . Nobody was able to add this source before as it was removed by the editors controlling the page because it was not considered a notable reference. Good job. Now the word is out and even a section on Wikipedia which was removed in the discussion , is now available. Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. First, you left me the same message you left another user (BM gub2). And I understand you're trying to explain something about the Ruggero Santilli page. If there is something specific you think needs to be added to that page, please go to Talk:Ruggero Santilli and discuss the issue there. Please explain exactly what source you think needs to be added, and what text you believe should be added to the text. Then we can discuss the issue. Of course, assuming you are using your real name as your username, you should not directly edit the article as you have a clear conflict of interest, but we can discuss the issue. Please note that there are no specific editors who "control" the page; all decisions are made by consensus, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this message went to you by mistake since you edited the section on Lawsuits. I was just thanking Bm gub2 (and congratulating him/her) on being able to add ref. 24 which several have tried to add before. So the consensus was not there before and it is there now....I think it is a favorable addition to the page. No need to have more discussion or addition. Thank you for your time.Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: UniStar School Changa Manga

Hello Qwyrxian. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on UniStar School Changa Manga to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? As a school, it is necessarily either an organization and or corporation; it had no assertion of importance (unless you consider the mere claim to be a school of some type to be an assertion of importance), and, as such should qualify under A7. No big deal; I suspect it will be deleted anyway at conclusion of the PROD period (absent some major changes) but I'm just wondering about your rationale. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Under the CSD rules, schools can't be deleted under A7, so I changed the CSD request into a PROD. As you wrote, it will produce the same result, it'll just take a week. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

WCCO-TV

The problem with the removal of that much content was that some sourced and readily available information was deleted too. Portions of the technical data, like the digital channel the station actually broadcasts on, the HAAT, the ERP, and even the facility ID were deleted. Also the information regarding WCCO's translator stations was taken off. All of this information, as I said, is readily available and sourced. I can see taking out the other parts, but not the stuff that is already properly sourced. Why should WCCO-TV be special? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that if the information is verified, even by an EL or a source that doesn't have an inline link, it should have been kept. Thanks for helping figure out what was appropriate to keep and what wasn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gurjar Leader Ram Chandra Vikal

Dear Mr. Qwyrxian I am also an old wikipedian and contributed lot in Gurjar , 1857 freedom and other articles. Here i putted the information and picture of Mr Ram chandra vikal with all weblinks and proof He was oldest freedom fighter and Gurjar leader. He was elected as M.L.A. for U.P. India in 1952.. I am giving you all media , news paper and government link.

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5238802 http://royalgurjars.blogspot.com/2007/05/famous-gurjars.html http://ayurveda.zeenews.com/news/uttar-pradesh/former-up-deputy-cm-ram-chander-vikal-dies_715608.html http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/former-up-deputy-cm-ram-chander-vikal-dies/739596.html http://ashokharsana.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars&action=display&thread=344 http://aiffo.org/about-us http://bulandshahar.nic.in/MLA1.html

I hope this is sufficient proofs for reference. Revert your changes. regards

Gurjeshwar (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss that on the article talk page. Providing the references is the absolute, bare minimum (and you would need to actually add one of those to the article; if we do add, I recommend the first one, as it seems to meet WP:RS). However, my opinion is that it's wrong to have anyone in the infobox that doesn't have an article about them--it gives too much weight to someone for whom we haven't verified notability. If other editors disagree with me, then we can revert and add the picture. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

recent edit

Your edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ICarly_(season_4)&diff=437663788&oldid=437656502. I know Blogs are not accepected as RS but Since this is the blog from the creator of the show its okay. Other users have dissuced this and said it was fine to use a a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King of Cards (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't realize that was the producer's blog; in that case, you are correct that it's a reliable source. I've added that episode back in. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with interested party repeated vandalism

Hi Qwyrxian - I need help corrected a living person bio page that has been repeatedly vandalized by an interested party. Is it possible for me to discuss this with you in email? I am looking to correct the page to a neutral tone, remove incorrect or slanted information and would like the page protected, but am not sure where to turn for help. Every time I try to correct the page, the interested party reverts my edits. Please help? =( Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's generally better to discuss issues here on Wikipedia, but if it's more comfortable for you, you can e-mail me by going to the left side of this screen, opening the "Toolbox" menu, and clicking the "E-mail this user" link. However, you need to do know right away: you need to never make an edit like this one from Talk:Susan Polgar again. Specifically, you attempted to reveal the identity of another Wikipedia editor, which is specifically forbidden by WP:OUTING. I'm going to ask for that edit to be suppressed (meaning it will disappear so that it can't even be seen in the history). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Jat people qualifier

Your clarification was spot on. I got that user name mixed up with someone else who keeps bringing up similar points without any "proof", and despite numerous attempts at explanation. I shall leave a mea culpa below your comment. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

RCP proposal

Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Word Macro trick

I see you alphasorting lists sometimes. As you have surely encountered, sorting a list in Word or other programs groups all bluelinked items together because they start with [[

There is a trick to get around that.

• First search and replace all * [[ with *[[ (get rid of the single space and make them consistent)

Then record a macro that says:

1. Search *[[
2. Right arrow backspace backspace to delete the [[
3. Go to end of line (click "end")
4. Type bunnybunny

Then run the macro a zillion times. It will change this:

• Willowdale school

into this:

Willowdale school]]bunnybunny

Then alphasort the list.

Then make a macro that says:

1. Search bunnybunny
2. Remove bunnybunny
3. Go to start of line (click "home") and right one space to get past the *
4. Type [[

You can keep the macro forever to use again and again. Saves oodles of time.

Tip: Keep a superwide Word document on the desktop so that almost certainly nothing linewraps, which can screw things up.)

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I've used a similar method before myself for stuff done outside Wikipedia. Whether or not I use Word to alpha-sort lists on WP depends on how long the list is; sometimes, it's practically the same speed to do it by hand when the list isn't too long. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Get Editpad or Editpadpro. Soooo good. The former is free. It's a simple Notepad, but with extra stuff, even macros and highlight-and-alphasort on the spot, and make-all-first-caps, and very easy search an replace, and stuff like that. Plus it's like a notepad but with tabs like firefox.

Microsoft Word drives me crazy. It's always so busy trying to guess (incorrectly) what I want and make it easy for me that I just want it to stop. Ever try to do indents and numbering and bullets and such? It just won't stop trying to guess what you want, and it's waaayyyyy off and you can't stop it. It's like a retarded person trying to take over what you're doing and show you how. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From IP

Why do you keep deleting my posts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.85.28.12 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your post on Korean cuisine because it was personal opinion, and very offensive opinion at that. Your other posts to my userpage were reverted by someone else, correctly, because they were vandalism. So, if you start posting legitimate information to the encyclopedia, I won't revert you. If you keep posting vandalism to user pages or the mainspace, I or someone else will continue to revert you, and you'll be blocked. Your choice. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal - Black sandbox closure

I was just writing the section below in the black sandbox to be placed right at the top as a final post. But, by the time I got to the bottom, as you can see, I started to question purpose.

SPIs are good for range blocks which doesn't seem feasible. The whole purpose of SPI is to connect users, which we don't need. We know darn well they're connected, certainly better than anyone else. We know the pattern.

AIV blocks persistent vandals. They could easily challenge what we know to be the same old story.

Maybe we should just continue with black for a few months. If we don't allow the addition of anything other than clear cases, why not? The system is in place. It's easy with rollback. It seems better than prospective plans. Maybe the vandal will run out of steam? Currently, it's like slow motion whack-a-mole. Little effort.

Nobody wants this bone out of our throats more than I. But, we could get dragged into more work otherwise. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Winding up this sandbox

It seems we are ready to move this to SPI. Ages ago, I tagged a few as socks with: 98.82.167.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as the sock master.

HelloAnnyong's reply was slightly unclear. I gather that we should start the SPI with 98.82.167.40 as master, and paste in the list below. Qwyrxian: Would you like to do the honours? I suggest stripping away the comments at the end of the lines, and adding a short summary of what's happened in the SPI. I don't know whether we should alphasort the list or not. Your call. Yippee!!

Well, not really yippee. We will still be doing the same thing. The only difference will be adding the IPs to the SPI instead of here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

And Qwyrxian, your last comment on this page was to rollback without checking each one. Yes! That's what I've been doing.

Finally, HelloAnnyong's advise might not be best after all. Qwyrxian's plan of simply sending the IPs to AIV could be best. I don't know. Actually, continuing exactly what we're doing here seems most efficient. Damn. This whole thing bites. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit tired at the moment, so I don't want to figure out how to do all of that tonight; tomorrow I'll likely be busy all day, possibly the day after. But I'll likely get to it tom. or Tuesday, and, if not, at the worst, on Wednesday (our time). However, one positive note: I don't know if you're aware, but Cluebot has "learned" that these edits, at least on WMBB, are "vandalism". My guess is that it looks to see which edits by IPs are being regularly reverted as vandalism; it may even have access to Huggle whitelists or other ways of measuring reliability of reverts. So maybe the longer we keep at it, maybe eventually Cluebot will start to take care of it for us! Of course, that user can always revert Cluebot, but, such is life.

With the SPI, one thing I'll want to find out is if maybe we can get a set of small rangeblocks that would eliminate most of the bad behavior. I've seen that done before on ANI, where one range was obviously too large, but the majority was coming from multiple smaller ranges. Maybe one of the CU experts can figure something tricky out. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Clever bunny. You're talking like a real gumshoe. :) There's also the edit filter thing. You rest. Let's pick this up at your leisure. There's no hurry. Lots of mallets, easy whacking, retarded mole.

Of course, the huge question from all of this is: In nature, are some moles retarded? You never see a retarded dog. Sure there's the Basenji. But they're consistently stupid. You never see, like, an obviously mentally retarded border collie. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Localized TV station slogans. It looks like they are running at about a week or more to begin initially responding to requests. Note that this won't actually stop the editor entirely: just recently, I've been seeing the editor also making unsourced changes to dates, to the names of employees, etc. But that actually happens all of the time from other good faith editors, too, so that will just have to be handled manually. Later I'll also open an SPI, just in case there's a set of magic micro-range blocks that can be applied. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong says rangeblocks won't work. If one small one will, I don't see it worth the human resources. In light of that, plus what you've said about edit filter, and the fact that AIV requires adequate warnings at user talk, I think we're best to avoid these unnecessary keystrokes and just keep rolling back and using black. Least effort. Lesser of all evils. Hope he runs out of steam. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll rolling and sending to AIV; part of the goal there is to maybe get admins seeing the same AIV report over and over, and maybe one of them might be willing to help find another solution. Hopefully in a week or two we can get up an edit filter that will work. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Billi Bruno

Just a heads-up, I'm pretty sure we're arguing with the IP of User:AmericaIsNumberOne there.--Atlan (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence for that, you can re-open the SPI case and have the IP blocked, at least temporarily; or, you may be able to contact the blocking admin directly and resolve it faster. Is warring over this name something that AmericaIsNumberOne did before? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here for example. Edit warring over According to Jim cast members is something he and his other accounts have done on a number of occasions. The IP is not very active, and there's no block evasion to prevent if it doesn't edit anymore. If it does become active, I will re-open the SPI. I currently have no indication that he is editing through new accounts.--Atlan (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Kshatriya Merge

Yes I'm really busy but sure I will do my best to add my conclusion before the end of July so that we can move forward. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fine; I'll leave a note on the merge discussion. If nothing comes in by sometime in August, I may recommend going ahead with an RfC anyway, just because I hate to leave the discussion floating forever. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not revert, I edited

I just edited the article, I never clicked on the undo button, lol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligent007 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:3RR, and you'll see that a revert is defined by what you do with the article, not by what buttons you pushed. 5 times in the last 24 hours, you have undone the changes of another editor. That breaks 3RR, which is a bright line rule. Don't worry, your first block will be short, and, after that, you can come back to the article and continue the discussion. Maybe even other editors will have come to support your position in the meantime. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi K page

Feel free to do what you want to do with that page. I totally agree with you on the point that we can't have blank pages. I will create an account soon. That way we can be in touch. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception Apostolic School

Ouch. Sorry y’all. My bad. TTFN. Y’all probably have a name for a chastened editor who slinks away humbly/petulantly for a long vacation….Zipcedric (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've now created an edit filter that will log edits by this vandal. You can see the filter at filter 426 (sysops/EFMs only) and its log at [1]. Hope this helps track the socker. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you see an edit by this vandal that isn't caught by the filter, point me to it and I'll see what I can do. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Why thank you--I will, in fact, accept the nomination. I'll sign it now, but it will take me a few days to write up my answers to the questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. The acceptance, that is. How long it takes you to answer the questions, which often baffle me, is irrelevant to me. I fall into that group who do not need to see answers unless you are planning on morphing into a totally different character in the next few days. This nom may well be my first comment at RfA. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your support :). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters

Your comments on List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters are quite good. Where is the appropriate place to discuss the overall concept of such list? Perhaps there is a possibility of creating a policy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the right place, I think, would be WT:Notability. The problem is, its been discussed to death, and there is some very fundamental disagreement about what is a notable list. Here's a list of all of the archived discussions about List notability; the most recent extensive discussions are probably Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 45#Lists and Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 46#wording for new section on lists, and [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 46#Completed a big step on lists. I don't think I participated much on any of these, as I found them fairly late in the game. But if you take a look, you'll see that there is massive disagreement about what constitutes a notable list. The most extreme views are "List of X" is notable if X is notable and "List of X + Y" is notable if people say it is; vs. the alternative view which says "List of X" is notable only if there is an actual, published List of X that is identical in content to our list. If you read the current guidelines, (WP:LISTN), you'll see how awkward the wording is, representing the closest thing to a compromise that they could cobble together. I don't know if opening up a new discussion will get somewhere productive, but if you think you have a new way to approach the subject so that some progress might be made, I'd be happy to read and join. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I will take a look at those discussions, but it is likely that there is not much hope of getting a policy. We are left with trying to delete particular lists, which also turns out to be difficult. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

danwarp

That blog IS a reliable source-it is run by the creator of the show and some of the crew at the nickelodeon studios. Read up on your facts first.--76.77.200.175 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article's talk page, someone else already mentioned that, and I apologized and re-added it. It's also already back in the article. Sorry, it was my mistake. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TV vandal - AIV

I'm not sure reporting the TV vandal at AIV is best. If you do, he gets blocked, and continues with another IP. If you don't report him, we revert, he continues with the same IP. I think the latter is easiest. Fewer keystrokes for you, me, at AIV, for admin, and at black sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting plan. Let's try it for a while and see if they stay on the one IP. If they switch again even without being blocked, then we can rethink the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I'm already seeing many more IPs now, compare to a few months ago. Now it's a new one every few days. Before the same one for a month. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy query

Let's say an article has numerous highly reliable sources available, of which 80% say that A = X, and 20% say A = Y. All other things being equal, we would present both of those viewpoints in an article because it is not our job to determine which of them is "true". (Some people might argue that we should devote 20% of the presentation to the less common viewpoint, since it is accepted by 20% of the sources, but I am not too fussed about weighting in this example.)

Now, let's say there are 5 people in favour of presenting both of the viewpoints but, perhaps quite suddenly, 50 people turn up and say "no, we're only going to present one viewpoint and because there are so many of us we can do it our way: we have consensus, after all". Both sides to the dispute accept that consensus is not a vote.

What happens in this situation? Does one viewpoint get whitewashed? Does it get whitewashed even if it is the "majority" viewpoint from the sources found? What if the 50 people in fact say that even though consensus is not meant to be a vote, the numbers in this instance are so overwhelming that it may as well be treated as being a vote?

The above is food for thought. I know that something is going on somewhere, you see.

BTW, it would make a very good RfA question, don't you think? Perhaps I should strike this and ask it at an upcoming RfA <g> - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You ask a fair question; the short answer is that the "minority" takes the issue through dispute resolution, makes sure there really are 50 and not 5 with large sock drawers (or meat puppets), and, if necessary, moves all the way up through mediation and arbitration. The long answer will have to come later, as it's 4:38 am here, I'm up watching the women's World Cup Finals, and while I've got enough energy to make it through the game, I don't have quite enough to make my brain produce reliable prose. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No rush at all. It is of more than mere academic interest to me, as I think you probably understand. Enjoy the game. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ross Corners

Hello!

You reverted this, saying that "as a Christian school, it's pretty obvious they teach from a Christian perspective; the evolution point was UNDUE".

This is a bit US-centric. In the US evangelicalism is synonymous with "Christian", but most elsewhere - certainly in Europe, if asked for their religion, people will say they are Protestant, Catholic, &c. Furthermore, to anyone not used to Evangelical Protestantism such things as affirmation of Young-Earth Creationism and denial of evolution are quite striking, and pointing these out implies in no way a viewpoint. I've had another go at it [2], but suggestions are welcome. 69.205.183.208 (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the first sentence of your new version, as it clarifies that it's not just a Christian school in name only, and explains which Biblical perspective they take. They second sentence, though, is WP:UNDUE. You've picked one aspect of their code that you think is particularly interesting (i.e., controversial), and noted it as if it were especially important. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source that discusses Ross Corners' anti-evolution/anti-homosexuality stance, keeping that in the article is an attempt to slant the coverage of them (particularly, as you point out, to non-US audiences). You may think that those stances are particularly unusual, but that's just your opinion. I'm going to remove the second sentence, but, as I said, the first one seems good. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, in fact. Anyone can go to the two articles linked there and understand what follows from what the people at Ross Corners profess. 69.205.183.208 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think it's not undue, especially outside the US. It would be good to source their opinion though. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are those two specific facts important? Looking at their [Statement of Beliefs], they believe dozens of things. Why didn't the user editor who added those two specific points also add that that they believe in a Trinity; in an actual personal Satan, have ambiguous views about divorce, or any of the other things on that page? It's not our job to pick out the opinions that they have that are the most interesting; rather, the catch-all overview of fundamentalism and literalism covers the overall perspective, and, as 69.205 mentions, editors can look at either the wikilinks or the academy's own webpage if they want all of the gritty details. Any time we pick individual details, when those details haven't already been noted as being "interesting" or "important" in reliable secondary, we have to question whether or not we're violating WP:UNDUE. To me, the POV that's being pushed regarding the school by focusing in on those two specific beliefs is pretty obvious, but the point is that we can't pick and choose details like that without justification. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Because that's rather significant academically. I consider it a cogent summary of their syllabus. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe we're talking about two different things. I said above that I do support the current sentence: "The belief statement of the school is written from a fundamentalist and literalist viewpoint." I do not support the second sentence that I removed: "This includes affirmation of Short-period creationism and condemnation of homosexuality." The first sentence I believe, as you say, is a good cogent summary of their syllabus. It's the second sentence that seems to be an UNDUE choice of two particular points. I see no evidence on their page of beliefs that homosexuality or young earth creationism are any more or less important than their view on the Trinity, on lawsuits between believers, or on divorce. Is it possible that we are actually agreeing about what should be in the article, or are you asserting that we should be mentioning YEC and anti-homosexuality? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Some stances might be more concerning to students than to others; prep school students do not have to worry about divorce, will likely not face severe harassment for having different theological views on the Trinity, but hostility to differing views on creation and homosexuality could be cogent points of discussion for a school. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is all your opinion; I could offer alternatives or argue that your opinion isn't correct, but the point is that we can't decide for ourselves what is or isn't important. If anyone has a reliable, independent source noting for some reason particular stances that the school holds are relevant (to parents, to students, to lawmakers, to protestors, to the King of Spain), and that point seems due, then we can include it. Until then, the overview is appropriate (as a summary of their opinion), but not random, self-selected details. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado page

Timbaland has coproduced 10 of the 12 tracks on her third album, "Loose". Nelly has also collaborated with Timbaland on various songs on his album, "Give it to me", "Morning after dark" and also before he co-produced her album, she had worked with him and Ms. Jade on a track called "Ching Ching". Timbaland had also remixed Nelly's "Turn off the Light" track on her first album. I would call this a long term association....Manas justice (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, on Timbaland, you are correct, my apologies. Do you concur that the rest that I removed don't count as associate acts? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

article: Jat people <about the removal of content>

Hello Qwyrxian,

Sikh-History has reverted some of My contributions to the article: Jat people. I have some reasonable doubts and believes that the information should be on the page. I have also shared My views for this. The explaination for the reverts, does not seems to be fair enough. You are quite an experienced One. So, I respectfully ask You to please join the discussion at Section: Experts' Assistance deeply Requested, about the Guidelines of Wikipedia. at Talk:Jat people. For which, I would be grateful to You! I have also invited Sitush to join the discussion. Could You also please put some light on the issue under discussion there.

Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Water Fuelled Car discussion

You have been cited and maybe you need to clarify if I am allowed to post on the discussion page of Water Fuelled Car. It seems that there is confusion among the editors about a couple of policies See below.Santilli.Carla (talk)CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)

Yes, you're right. And, yes: "Uncredited" might be better than "discredited"! But whatever: We can't give undue weight to the magnecule theory, so either we have to find appropriately balanced reliable sources - or simply remove all discussion of it as "non-notable"...since, if mainstream science has not written about some theory - then it is certainly not notable. SteveBaker (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually (slaps hand to forehead), note the name of the person who started this thread. One can assume some connection to Ruggero Santilli, who invented magnecules.Prebys (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You're close: Carla Santilli is a Director of MagneGas and wife of Ruggero Santilli. Still, WP:COI almost certainly applies here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

---

This is your message to Guyonthesubway on January 25,2011.

"Please re-read WP:COI. Your interpretation of it is flat out wrong. In fact the policy encourages people with COI to add their opinions on talk pages about how to improve articles. That's much better than having them edit articles directly; but, technically, COI doesn't even forbid that! Second, you may not remove people's comments from a talk page for having a COI. The only time you can remove comments is when the person is 1) vandalizing, 2) violating WP:BLP (and that's a tricky one), or 3) soapboxing about something not related to the article itself. In this case, the editor was clearly and directly pointing out things xe believes need to be changed in the article. Now, those changes may be wrong, and the request certainly wasn't phrased ideally, but that does not allow you to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)" Please give guidance ~~CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)

Some words of comfort

I know that RfA can be a bit of a harrowing experience. Don't worry. You're doing fine, as usual. Soon you'll be a made Wikipedian. Then, nobody will be able to whack you without talking to Jimbo first. Of course, in talk page posts, you'll need to start using such phrases as "fuggedaboutit" and "What did I just say?" :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

?!?! I didn't know I'd have to change all of my lingo! Although I was strongly considering starting every discussion post with, "Don't you know who I am?" :) Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ROFL!! Ha ha ha ha ha. Nice! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Time for a "Double" Reward...

Though I will still ask whenever I need to, the following should help you on your way to becoming an Administrator...

		Cookies!
		CHAK 001 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I shall award this user, Qwyrxian, not only for good communication, but also good work with other users. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

		The Special Barnstar
		This reward is given to Qwyrxian, for the great accomplishments in dealing with problems at my talk page (those are now archived). I have, under my determination, that Qwyrxian has explained the appropriate polices if I attempted to create something that may be out of hand for some users. Not only Qwyrxian deserves more cookies, but Qwyrxian also deserves a great accomplishment. CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chak. If you ever need help, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA

"I doubt any amount of arguing here is going to change Axl's !vote."

Right! Best wishes and good luck in your new role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You can send me the user's threatening email

You can also forward it to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team for ticketing purposes. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads had me send it to her; after reading it, she blocked the user, and, after being threatened herself, and revoked the user's email privileges. The target of the original threat (DGG) has also been notified, just in case he wants to take it seriously. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Looks like this may have been resolved, but FYI, I posted an opinion on this issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki_.28email.29_legal_threat today. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification request

Hey, Qwyrxian. Your response to Keepscases's question was somewhat vague to me; are you saying that it's related to something that you're involved in outside of Wikipedia? An aspect of your personal life? Does his question have any connection to Wikipedia whatsoever? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to 'dig', I'm just trying to gauge the question itself. Clarification would be appreciated. Swarm ^X 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless the point of the question was to see how well I understood WP:OUTING, it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever. But as you know (as a regular RFA voter), many of Keepscases questions are, for all intents and purposes, entirely unrelated to Wikipedia (each of those 3 "answers" I gave was to a past Keepscases question). The question xe posed to me, however, is a reference to work that can be found on another internet site under the same name as my username here. That particular site, assuming its connected to me, doesn't contain any personally identifiable information. The problem is that for me to actually explain the meaning of that site (as the question requires), I'd have to reveal some personal details; those details could then conceivably be used to do more internet searches which would in turn likely point to things that do come very close to identifying me personally. I almost answered the question anyway; everything I do online is done with the presumption that it will one day be found be prospective employers, friends, family, etc., so I have a pretty clean internet presence...but I figure I oughtn't make it too easy for someone on WP with a grudge to drag the rest of my life up. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Sounds like Keeps just being Keeps. His questions are generally given a pass because they're harmless and humorous. This had the appearance of stalkerish behavior and an attempt to bring unrelated aspects of your personal life into an RfA, which is utterly inappropriate, but since you seem completely unbothered by it I assume it's NBD. Thank you, and my congrats on your RfA. Swarm ^X 05:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

There is presently a discussion going on at ANI regarding Indian caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...I've read the whole thing, and started a response twice; both times cancelling it after I realized I wasn't really adding anything beyond what others have said, and I'm not really any more independent than you or MV are. The problem is that the issue is far too complicated for the free-for-all of ANI; ArbCom really is the way to go, but I'm not sure we've exhausted our other DR options. However, one possibility is that it might be appropriate because the issue ranges across so many articles. Arbcom, also, is an awful lot of work. But it seems pretty likely to me that this issue is just as contentious (because of real world issues) as PI, British Isles, or Climate change, so it seems like, if not now, eventually it needs to be treated like them (i.e., under Discretionary Sanctions). If you think we're going to go there eventually, one important thing to do is to keep evidence--you don't need full details, but make sure you at least have links to all of the discussions that you think are relevant. Also, be sure you keep a copy of any off-wiki info you find, in case that's later taken down (like the $12,000 payment (btw, was that INR? BP? USD?)).

I may still comment on the ANI thread, if something particularly useful occurs to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am keeping out of it now. It is going way off-topic at the moment. Your point about notes struck me earlier today, which is about three weeks too late. I need to do some digging. I am pretty sure it meant USD. I will print that now. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for putting up that RfC. It's rare that I can discuss something I actually have great knowledge of like this, but I believe I have presented my views better there than in many other places I've commented on Wikipedia. I'll see what others think in the morning. CycloneGU (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If the community decides that this is a reasonable exception I have no problem with that; I know that it's a potential WP:BEANS issue to write the exception directly into the guidelines, but even if we decide not to, if the consensus is clear on the talk page, at least it will be there for reference for future disputes. I suppose I should add my opinion (basically, copied from the Polgar talk page), but I figured I'd wait a bit before doing so. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write something in prior to this RfC being started, but I could not figure out the wording and decided I'd come back later to think about it again. Your RfC came in between, so it works perfectly and gets a discussion going about it. Definitely need to find a way to accommodate this, the editor who originally started making this change at Susan Polgar has been very active in the chess Wikiproject and made a number of great changes. CycloneGU (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A cup of Tea for You!

Dear Qwyrxian, You are always very polite, even if You have to answer massive amount of queries from the less experienced Users; I have observed that You never get frustrated. You are truely a Gentleman. I wish You Lots of Luck for the Adminship. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

A Quote for You:

"In a day, when You don't come across any problems- You can be sure that You are traveling in a wrong path." - SWAMI VIVEKANANDA

Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That quote is good advice for Wikipedia, but probably even better for my real life. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Prod error

Hi, You did not prod tag properly Environmental issues in Chandigarh Capital Region.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done it for you. MKY talk page lives again! - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops...that's embarrassing. I specifically didn't use Twinkle so that there was no notification...but I failed to type the right code in the process. It would be totally great if the interface had some sort of feature where you could see what your new addition will look like before you actually post it...almost like a "preview"...hey, whats that button down here........... 00:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the button marked "Preview" ? ;) I needed some light relief: was absolutely fed up of the antics of Yogesh Khande today, spread across numerous areas, although I did manage a massive overhaul of Cash-for-votes scandal overnight. That, at least, is now both neutral and complete ... until the story moves on. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Date format

Hi! You might notice the recent edits on Sea of Japan naming dispute. See User talk:Oda Mari#Dates on Sea of Japan naming dispute. I thought the article used MDY. I checked the edit history. It was this edit when a date first appeared in the article and it was corrected at this edit. When you rewrote the article, the date in the body of article was MDY and the ref. dates were mixture of MDY and DMY. [3] Then you changed the date format of ref. to DMY like this one. I think that made me confused. I think it should be back to MDY as the very first edit used MD. I was told "follow the first use" when I tried to change BCE/CE to BC/AD in an article. Besides, I'm accustomed to BC/AD and DMY as most of Japan related articles use them, and honestly speaking I personally like them. But should I leave the date format alone as it is? I'd like to know your explanation and opinion, BTW, I think it should be included in the lead that when the dispute begun. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with date consistency; as far as I read MOS:DATEUNIFY, the entire article should be consistent, and the references should be consistent, although the two sets don't have to be identical. Whenever I add a date/accessdate in refs, I always use DMY, but that's just because the ref pop-up helper uses that format automatically for accessdate. Now, deciding between the two is more difficult, since the "national ties" argument in MOS doesn't work, since both Korea and Japan use YMD, but that format isn't allowed. So, between MDY or DMY, I don't really care; if you say that most articles related to Japan use MDY, that's as good a reason as any. For BC/AD...well, part of me hates the idea of imposing a Christian-centered date method on non-Christian countries, but then again I found out just a few months ago that none of my Japanese colleagues had even heard of CE/BCE format. Do you know which one they use in Korea?

In general, you're right that we should go with the first format (date order and era naming) unless 1) it was always a mess, or 2) there is a good solid rationale for switching and you can get consensus on talk to switch. So if you raise the issue on talk, I'll definitely support the switch to DMY and BC/AD. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations! I will ask the editor who changed the format if he would mind to change it back. I don't know which format is used in Korea. But at here, I saw CE/BCE is used in many Korean-related articles. As for BC/AD, the Meiji government adopted it as a Western calender, a global standard, and Japan has been using BC/AD. Not that it was imposed. In fact, I didn't know CE/BCE format either till I came to WP. It's only a few years ago. When I saw someone said something like "Japan is not a Christian country. So it should be better to use CE/BCE", I was surprised and thought I didn't know BC/AD was only for Christians. And to me, it is a some kind of discrimination to sort out Christian from non-Christian. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was asked to comment here, and I have the following points to make:

1. An article's prose and references can indeed be different as long as they are internally consistent.
2. References are allowed to be in YMD format, per MOS:DATEUNIFY, and if the consensus is to change the references to YMD per WP:STRONGNAT, I don't see a problem there.
3. If the references are changed to YMD, I have no preference for either MDY or DMY in the prose; my only issue is that the use of both MDY and DMY in the same article seemed odd and unexpected.
4. No instances of BC/AD or BCE/CE exist in the article, so DATERET shouldn't be a problem there (yet).

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

... in being an admin. Unfortunately, Magog the Ogre will still be my favourite admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I got mis-quoted in the ANI about CANVASSing. I sarcastically said I felt offended when a certain party did not invite me for opportunities to cast a vote when STSC and Lvhis were both invited (wtf? inviting Lvhis and not me?!). I suppose I'd have to say ambiguity in noun-pronoun attachment is to blame, although I am very sure I've been quite unambiguous in my use of pronouns in that case. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, Bob, that people are unable to detect sarcasm over teh internet because so much of the sarcastic intent is carried by tone of voice. It's best to use fake wiki mark-up so your intent is clear. For example: <sarcasm>I think George Bush was a great president.</sarcasm> Regards, --Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's as sacrilegious as doing <joke>[Insert joke here]</joke>. I'd much rather be mis-quoted here than desecrating my wonderful sarcastic comments. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to take your advice after all (at least for a limited set of occasions). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a pretty good response [4]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No respect or understanding of chess problems

You quoted WP:SPOILER when reverting my change, which used the {{HiddenMultiLine}} template to "hide" the solution the single Polgar chess problem in the article. I think that is so inappropriate! For several reasons.

1. SPOILER talks about deleting info from an article. I deleted nothing.
2. SPOILER says "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work [...] that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may 'spoil' the experience for any reader who learns details of the plot in this way rather than in the work itself." For a chess problem, the problem IS the "work itself"! So what would the phrase "rather than" in the just-quoted sentence refer to or apply to? (Answer: Nothing.) So what SPOILER is describing, does not fit here. (It is not the same. It does not apply.)
3. Logically, if you were *right* about your revert, then you should have a problem on the larger scale, about the template {{HiddenMultiLine}}. Logically to you, that template should not exist, for it it is always in violation of SPOILER. But the chess community disagrees with that, or the template wouldn't exist! If you want to back up your revert, then let's see you support an RfD for the template!
4. For an article to get to FA status, it has to be at least somewhat enjoyable to read. The Polgar problem is a chess problem for Christ's sake! (In fact, I was reading the Polgar article myself for my own enlightenment and enjoyment. When I came across the 2-mover, I was excited to try and solve it, since Polgar was only FOUR YEARS OLD when she composed that problem. So I thought I could find the answer quite easily, but, it was taking more seconds to do so than I first predicted it would! And the point is, I got the idea to "hide" the solution, because having it staring at me bug-eyed in the face, while trying to avoid looking at it, was a big nuisance. [In fact, what I did was, fire-up my Microsoft calculator, because I knew it "floats" over anything else, and I floated it over the printed solution, so it would no longer distract me as I continued working the problem. That is how and why I had idea to use the template to cover the answer - so other readers, like myself, wouldn't be distracted should they decide out of curiosity or fun, to work the problem while reading the article.])

Don't you think your arbitrary enforcement of SPOILER was a rather shallow, "fire-from-the-hip" reaction? (Because I certainly do.) The fact that you misinterpret policy to make a destructive revert with impunity as you did, makes me wonder if you have a "value rules above all else"-type personality. (If so then join the army!)

Your decision to revert in this case was, for me, clearly shallowly thought out, and dead wrong. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I quoted the relevant portion of WP:Spoiler on the talk page; in short, not only does that guideline say that we can't delete info to avoid spoiling info, we also don't use disclaimers or other methods to hide the info. This is a long established, site wide guideline. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS a local group (say, those interested in Chess articles, or a wikiproject if there is one) cannot override site-wide policies and guidelines. I happen to agree with the guideline, as well--I don't believe any information on Wikipedia should be hidden, because it's an inevitable slippery slope ("This movie isn't interesting at all if you know the end"..."Giving this info makes it too easy to beat this video game"..."This info is offensive to my religion"...). We're not a site for entertainment of individuals: we provide information. Finally, your point about the template is misplaced--it could well be that the template is basically designed only for use only outside of article-space. As a similar example, WP:MOS explicitly forbids the use of decorative quotations in articles, but we have a template, Template:cquote that exists specifically to do just that (it's the one that puts big blue quotes around block quotes). Why do we have it? Because it's useful in many articles in Wikipedia-space, like policies and guidelines. Now, if you still think I'm wrong, I'll stop reverting, and we can find a way to handle the dispute via dispute resolution. Maybe we can start with a Third opinion, if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, at least I got you willing to pause (not revert and enter Talk). User Torchiest pointed out something I didn't see before: "Both WP:COLLAPSE and WP:Spoiler are guidelines, not policies, and both lead with the disclaimer that reasonable exceptions can be made." And he believed what I was doing was reasonable to both. I think user Novangelis was quite brilliant when he observed: "The concealment, in this case, is content."

Anyway, you scared the pants off me, because of the degree of strictness you wanted to use when interpreting the relevant policy. (Have you seen the noticeboard results so far?) Can I ask you if this modifies in any way, your already-expressed stance on the issue? (I imagine yes.) Also, Elen scared me 100 percent more than you did, she seemed to be equally strict, but wanted to bully me and threaten me, too. She was very glib suggesting my position was so bad that I should "revert [myself]". Please, if you become an Admin, be less brittle! (And what about Elen? Will the noticeboard results coming in, even make her pause in her sense of infallibility? She was quite a bully, except for opening the noticeboard item on my behalf. [But even then, the way she framed the issue, was condescending toward me, saying she only needed "someone else besides her" to set me straight.] What amazing EGO.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Specifically too, I wanted to thank you for this: "Now, if you still think I'm wrong, I'll stop reverting, and we can find a way to handle the dispute via dispute resolution. Maybe we can start with a Third opinion, if you like." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You ought to join in the discussion at the noticeboard. WP:3RR is a bright line - you have to stop and discuss, and you were about to go over it. Persuasion is always better - with a very few exceptions, guidelines can be modified if you don't try to barge straight through them with armorial bolloques. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I "was about to go over it"? Do you see into the future? I was well aware how many times I reverted, well aware of 3RR. All the counsel directed toward me here and on AN/I is misplaced. Save it, please. You say "persuasion is always better", but I'm sorry Elen, I find that particularly hypocritical seeing you: 1) reverted my edit even after a consensus discussion had been already initiated on Talk, then 2) put a block threat on my Talk page after your revert. And I didn't see any positive contribution by you in the consensus discussion, only repeated demeaning "no".

For the fith or sixth time, please stop with the messages to my attention. I'm more than tired by the consisent condescension and baiting. Please go away and leave me alone! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwy, if I post here on your Talk w/ a question, it's meant for you, not somebody else, just so you know. You didn't respond, yet meanwhile Elen comes in, leaves me more unwanted comments. Question: Do the two of you function like a "tag-team" in a wrestling match? Does she follow your activity and back you up on issues unrelated to her own editorship? After you reverted me at Susan Polgar, in swooped Elen to revert me also, threaten me with block, followed by making unhelpful contributions on Talk:Susan Polgar. It seems a mutual-support association from her-to-you undeniable, and, I question it's value, as it's quite left a negative impression on me, a relatively new editor on WP. (It's frustrating to attempt a discussion with you, with Elen inserting herself. If you wished, I'm sure you could discuss the matter with her. Have you? It's none of my business of course, but, I think a pattern is clear, and it's fostered this comment. Did she contribute anything special to the Susan Polgar topic? Or was her involvement just a "no" with added sparks generated?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this is going to be a really long answer, because I want to try to explain both the specific situation and more general concerns.

I can't speak for Elen, but I can tell you about how I work, and thus make guesses about how she works. First, as far as I know, no, Elen of the Roads has never worked on Susan Polgar before. That, in and of itself doesn't mean anything though, because any editor is free to edit any article at any time (barring weird things like topic bans). Second, I can verify that I did not ask Elen to come help on the article, so tag teaming does not apply (that term, at least as far as its used on Wikipedia, specifically refers to when two or more editors explicitly coordinate their actions; see WP:Tag team for more info. However, I can guess that I know what happened. Many long term editors like myself keep the user/user talk pages of other editors on our watchlist. I just checked, and I have over 900 user pages on my watchlist. Now, the vast majority of those are editors I'll never interact with again, or who may never even edit again--they get added automatically whenever I warn someone for vandalism, or welcome them, for instance, and I only clean up that part of my watchlist every few months. Other people are on my watchlist because I had a conversation on their talk page, and I never took it off. However, some I keep on my watchlist because they are editors I have interacted with positively and helpfully in the past, and I'm interested in what they might do in the future. So, for example, I keep Elen of the Roads talk page on my watchlist, and probably will keep it indefinitely. Sometimes, I see her (or anyone else I'm watching) having problems, and sometimes I try to help. In this case, my guess is that Elen saw you and I having a problem, and in this case there was a specific guideline that seemed to pretty clearly apply. Thus, just like any editor can do, she decided to edit the page in a way that she thought best. Note that this wasn't to assist me, but (I assume) to do what she thought was necessary to make the encyclopedia better. That is, sometimes I see a wikifriend of mine having problems, and when I go to look at the situation, I actually side with the other person. Really, it's no different than if Elen had just happened upon the article by seeing the edits pop up on Recent Changes. So, no, we weren't tag teaming, and yes, she was justified in editing the article to revert you if she felt (like I did) that what you were doing was not in the best interests of the article. Furthermore, I believe that she was completely justified in giving you a 3RR warning, because you didn't seem to understand that once more than one person disagrees with your change, it's your responsibility to go to the article's talk page and discuss it before trying to force your version through on the article (i.e., edit warring). This process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and, while not policy, is a pretty standard way of editing on Wikipedia.

Here's my advice--when you change articles, sometimes, people are going to object. When you add stuff to articles, maybe the same day, maybe weeks or months later, someone else may remove it or change it. When they do so, it usually isn't out of malice--rather, it's simply because they disagree with the change you've made, or they think they can make it even better. In order to edit on Wikipedia, you have to be able to deal with that, and not take it personally. That doesn't mean you have to accept their change or reversal--that's why we have talk pages to hash things out, and, when that isn't enough, we have a full dispute resolution process to work through disagreements. I promise that in this case, no one was tag-teaming you; rather, you simply ran into a case where two different editors think your edit was wrong. Now, looking at the discussion we're having at on the MOS talk page, it looks like the wide community is likely to decide that they prefer your version, which is great! I have no problem with crafting an exception to the guideline, so long as that exception is widely supported. This is because I strongly believe in WP:CONLIMITED, which is to say, I strongly disagree with the attempts of some groups (usually Wikiprojects) to create walled gardens, inside of which they enforce different rules than the rest of Wikipedia. Exceptions are great, but those exceptions can't be crafted entirely by the in-group. But I also accept that my interpretations of guidelines are not always consistent with the communities, and, when that is the case, I'm happy to bow to community consensus.

I hope this way-too-long answer helps allay some of your concerns. Again, while I can't speak for Elen, I will say that in my experience, she's one of the nicest, most conscientious members of Wikipedia, with both a great grasp of policy/the community as well as a great ability to interact with people on a personal level. I hope that this event hasn't at all soured your experience with Wikipedia--someone mentioned elsewhere that you're doing really great and helpful work on chess-related articles, so your input is greatly appreciated. Let me know if you have more questions or concerns, about this issue or anything else. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, your reply is really quite irritating. I sincerely guess and think that you believe you are being responsive and helpful in your reply, but you shouldn't, because in reality I'm finding 80-85 percent what you wrote very irritating, very unhelpful. (It even opens up a new issue which didn't exist previously, namely, your justification of Elen's 3RR block threat on my Talk - which totally shocks me that you would support that act, making me think you must not have your facts right.) For example, asserting Elen has "good people skills" - when what she did regarding me was: put me in an unnecessary 3RR bind, threaten me against WP guideline, contribute nothing but sparks to the Polgar Talk consensus discussion, suggest I "revert [myself]" there, define the issue at AN/I in a superior and condescending tone, falsely accuse and bait me at the AN/I, and bait me further by calling me an unwarranted familiar name ("pet") twice. (Elen may indeed have great people skills, but, I wasn't on the receiving end this time.) Like I said, I want to respond more fully time-permitting (you and I are busy w/ other things now). So you can have a clue why 80-85 percent what you wrote is irritating and unhelpful, because I honestly don't think you are aware. (But one thing I expressly will not tolerate, is Elen coming in here to chime now, or at any point, as she has shown to be apt to do. There is already enough chaos. [Thx for your presumed support on that, should she attmept.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. I hope you're not offended by my oppose vote. (No offense intended.)

Hi Q. Despite Ihardlythinkso attempting to ban me from your talkpage (LOL), you are right, I was trying to help. The ultimate outcome - the RfC on what to do with puzzle solutions - is the right one I think. I share your concern about walled gardens (and the concern of others about slippery slopes, given some of the intense battles there have been in the past over hiding content that was offensive to one party or another), but if the community agrees a tight definition change, then I have no problem with that of course. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso: absolutely no offense taken at your oppose vote; in fact, your concern has had me thinking for the last few days if there was some way I could have handled this differently from the start. I still think that my removal and comments were correct, but I wonder if there was some way that I could have explained myself better or in a different place so that this wouldn't have gotten so antagonistic. I also wish that my above comment hadn't been 80-85% irritating...I'm struggling here, because I really am not sure how to shape what I'm saying in a way that won't irritate you, because I actually don't (myself) see what was irritating in that comment. I don't understand why you felt that Elen pointing out to you our policy was wrong; do you think its better if people don't explain our policies and guidelines to editors who seem not to know them? Do you think we need to communicate them in some other way? Was it the very act of notification that was a problem, or the phrasing that she used (which is our standard 3RR template)? If continuing this conversation or answering these questions makes you more upset, please feel free to decline, but if you wish, I am absolutely happy to hear if there is something which I/Wikipedia can do better to make interactions like this less painful for all involved?

Qwyrxian, I wish you would have honored my two requests, but, you ignored both of them. The first request was to be patient, until I had a chance to responsd to your over-long paragraph more fully. Now you have tried to address what you believe the issues might be, asked more questions, etc. Bad. Please respect what I asked you. You are only confusing things and compounding complexity by adding things and not letting me reply to your original post. Please stop it. The second request you ignored, was my request to keep Elen OUT of this dialogue. I am talking to you, not her. I do not want to have anything to do with her, and I want her to have nothing to do with me. If she has something she wants to communmicate to you or with you, she can open up her own section on your Talk. I specifically asked to keep her out of this section. So what does she do? Next day, she comes in here, acknowledges the request to keep out of here, then adds her post here. I don't care the content of her post, the fact is, she intentionally chimed in here, when she knew I didn't like it or want it, and asked your support to keep her out. Did you give me any support? You ignored my request. Why did you ignore my request? Elen has and is irritating me, and she seems to not control herself from doing it, just for spite. She knows she irritates me. So to come here intentionally and post, when asked not to, is baiting and harassing. Why don't you talk with her? You see the irritation she has caused, you see the complaints and requests of mine to solicit your help to stop her from butting in. Yet you do nothing. And you say to me: "I am absolutely happy to hear if there is something which I/Wikipedia can do better to make interactions like this less painful for all involved?" The answer is yes, and obvious, and already answered: please help keep Elen out of this dialogue with you. (If you are going to give me answer, that all WP editors can edit anywhere, and there are no such controls, I already know that, save your breathe. This is about courtesy [does WP have any policies on that?????????] and respect. So please don't give reply whereby I have to think you are intentionally being cute or slow. This post by me is 10 times longer than it has to be. But I find myself repeating and repeating to you, because nothing seems to sink in. Please give me a break and listen when I write something, and stop with the cascade of responses to imagined points. What I would like to do is IGNORE your last post, so that I can still RESPOND to your over-long paragraph, as originally asked, as originally planned. Ok? And I cannot do that, if Elen cannot be controlled, if she continues to come in here. (She apparently cannot control herself, for whatever reason. That is why I asked for you to speak with her and support my request, and ask her to respect my request.) The combination/tag-team Qwyrxian-Elen, I've had my fill. I want it to end please. At least with me. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies; I do not see in your message where you told me not to say anything; you simply said you want to respond more, which is what I was inviting you to do; my reply was not meant to cut you off. I'll post nothing more here until you ask me to, Ihardlythinkso. As for Elen, I'll leave a note on her talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I could have been clearer. I said: "I want to respond more fully time-permitting (you and I are busy w/ other things now)." Sorry I wasn't clearer. I appreciate your attention, but we have disagreements and as soon-to-be Admin, I'd like to ask you about them. But one thing per time. (My followup might include clarifying Qs for you, and if you go on ahead using supposed points and making further comments, it adds confusion & complexity.)

I appreciate you finally talking to Elen. I really do. You are improving my faith in the civility of WP by doing so.

p.s. For time-being, due to the mushroom cloud developed out of the policy fuss, and especially the stuff sent my way from Elen, I've lost all interest in the little chess problem "hide"/"show" techinque. You guys have worn me out. I no longer care what happens. I'm out. No further comment. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood; take your time. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)