User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Qwyrxian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Speedy tags

OK.I will quit the speedy tags as per your advice.But please do not report me to WP:ANI.My request.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} What I done? 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OK about that.Recently,I have reverted a edit which was made in a archive of a talk page.Modifying a archive of a talk page is not allowed.Is this OK?I just want to change;I will;from now,Do minor edits,I expect to join the typo team after some months.I think it will be great for me.In the past,and currently,I can actually distinguish spamming,I have a lot of them in my email account;And my spam tags are all appropriate.I've even done with placing the advert tag.I think this will be good for me.Look,the matter is that,I do not want to get a block.I know,even I was a newcomer once;and my wish to do more at Wikipedia grew naturally.Within 3 months I have done more than 950 edits.Best,That's me! ^{Have doubt?} What I done? 05:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi.Recently I have put a speedy tag as per Section G12 of CSD to Samsung Wave 525>I think now I can put speedy to which I am absolutely sure.See my contribs,In the past;I have marked many articles with appropriate tags.Man will always make mistakes,it is up to him whether he wants to change is a proverb.Now I think this will be right for me.Isn't this a good idea?That's me! ^{Have doubt?} What I done? 06:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that tag and the revert of the archive change was correct. And no one is going to block you if you stop making such a large number of errors in CSD tagging. As JohnCD said, what may be a smart thing for you to do is, if you're doing NPP, and you think an article should be speedy tagged under one of the ambiguous categories (like A7 and A3), then don't tag it, but, instead, watchlist it, and see what happens to it. If nothing happens to it after a few days, come ask me or someone else what we think. That way, you can get practice with "tagging" without actually tagging. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit of Hyderabad, India

Greetings, as my copy-edit of Hyderabad, India is drawing to a close, do you think that more could (or should) be done to the article? Or are you happy with my copy-edit? Please tell me what you think so I can improve my writing. --Sp33dyphil © • © 01:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing another pass now. Your edit definitely improved things, though I'm finding more to be done. While there are grammar problems, those can appear even after multiple people copy-edit. One thing, though, that you should be on the look out for is overlinking. Specifically, any given term should be linked only once in any given article (though it can be linked additional times in picture captions or tables), and common words, like myth and etymology should not be linked. Finally, some of the changes I'm making go beyond the bounds of basic copyediting, though you can do them if you like; specifically, one problem with the article is that it has too many puffery (POV) sentences, so cutting those out is also helpful. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

View

Could you please put forward your opinions here? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Dethcentrik for possible move to mainspace

Hi again Qwyrxian!
I made fixes to Dethcentrik, and since you did list what to fix before moving to the mainspace and I did fix what you asked, I would really appreciate if you'd take another look at the page and move it if you deem ready! BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it's moved now. I left a note on the talk page clearly indicating that it cannot be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4--that's a special criteria we have that says that if someone recreates an article that was deleted by AfD without any substantial changes, that the article can be deleted immediately without discussion. I asserted that, at least in this one admin's opinion, the problems have been addressed, so anybody who wants to delete it needs to go through AfD again.

Also, I left a template on the article page that says that the article uses "bare links". That means that, in general, we prefer references to be use a "citation template", like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} These templates include a lot more information in them, which helps in case websites move files or a newspaper, etc. goes offline. There are several relatively easy ways to do these, or they can even be done by hand, though they all take time. If you take a look at Sea of Japan naming dispute (I pick that one just because I know I worked on it extensively so I know the references are all fixed), and you try editing it, you'll see what those templates look like. There's a way to modify your editing window to give you some pop up windows that help you add those. I can show you how (later)...or you can even just leave the article, and likely some other editor who enjoys doing that kind of detailed work (we call it "gnoming") will come along to do it instead (we have a few automated tools that people can use to take care of about half of the work). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Climate change policy of the United States and Energy policy of the United States

Per Talk:Energy_policy_of_the_United_States#Include_Climate_change_policy_of_the_United_States_wikilink., I agree, add Climate change policy of the United States. 99.56.120.249 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, so let's see what other editors think on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI reply

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Help urgently needed on unblock-en-l - barnstars available.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (t) (e) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

CCI

Hey. Just letting you know that I've had a talk with Moonriddengirl on my talk page. You stated at ANI that you would probably open a CCI and I think she agrees this is the best course, as does the user who opened the thread. Nightw 19:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I opened one last night (though I just noticed now that I misspelled your name. You can see it at the bottom of WP:CCI#Requests. I don't know how fast CCI operates--I know that some of their more serious cases have been going on for quite a while. As Moonriddengirl implied, that doesn't mean you're under restriction for that long; plus, as she and you said, you haven't contributed major text to too many articles, so it shouldn't be so hard. One thing I do know from watching ANI is that unlike a lot of other problems (where we want the editor to just stop), with CCI's I think that once a contributor recognizes the problem, if they work to fix it, everyone really appreciates it. As I said on your talk page, nearly every long term contributor at some point at least comes close crossing the "close-paraphrasing boundary". I have a lot of balls in the air at the moment, but I would be happy to help advise. What you might want to do is take something like the Al-Nurayn Mosque article, which was primarily your work, and try a re-write (on the page itself there's a link for how to do that in a temporary subspace). After you give it a shot, leave me a message here, and I'll review it, going through each of the sources to look for points of similarity. If that ends up solving the problem, then we can move it back to mainspace.

Regarding the right way to revise, I find that one thing I have to do when trying to avoid cv problems is to first make sure and read all of the article that I'm drawing a source from, then try to write the relevant text from my head, rather than while directly looking at the source. That makes me more likely to summarize the info and use my own words, instead of just taking the words in the text and sticking too closely to them. Let me know if you need help.

Finally, let me say that after dealing with all sort of editors become instantly defensive and angry when confronted with concerns about their work, your response is extremely refreshing...wonderful in fact. Thank you for understanding that this is a serious issue, and for offering to help solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's really kind of you! I know you've got more than your fair share of crap to deal with, so it's pretty cool that you've taken the time to help me out. I'll try and get that rewrite done by tomorrow and leave you a message—I'm going to try your method and see how it comes out on the first try. Thank you sincerely for the advice and the help. Nightw 13:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Finished: Talk:Al-Nurayn Mosque/Temp. Nightw 12:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright--getting late here, I'll take a look at it in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify: is userfication an option or not? Nightw 15:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now drastically pruned and renamed that userpage. See here. I hope it doesn't constitute any BLP violations. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first, on the Pretenders userification, Fowler's copy-paste move was questionable, but fixed very rapidly. That is, copy-pasting an article into user space could potentially be a licensing issue, due to the lack of retained attribution. Normally, licensing could be dealt with easily by adding a link to the original article in an edit summary, but since the article is likely to be deleted soon, that wouldn't work. However, F&f solved that problem, along with the BLP problem, by stripping the "article" down to nothing more than a set of convenience links. As such, I see copyvio or BLP problems (it's basically just like me keeping a list of "articles I've worked on", or "articles about topics I want to monitor").

Regarding the mosque, my apologies, but it's going to be a few more days until I can get to it; I'm unexpectedly busy IRL, and analyzing it is not something I want to do quickly...but I will try to do it this weekend, hopefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the changes made look fine, although the article's content is still in the page's contribution history... There's no hurry for the mosque article. Nightw 09:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of major image changes

Hi Qwyrxian, On October 29th, i nominated A380 Emirates A6-EDC as a candidate for promotion as a Featured Picture. On November 3rd, a user stated that i should consider putting the picture i have nominated as the lead image for Airbus A380, as he said: "This is a larger image then the image that is the lead image for the article". Later in the day on November 3rd, I decided to go ahead and switch the lead image. Within 2 hours and 7 minutes, another user reverted my change with the reason: "Please discuss any major image changes first". In the past week, i have devoted 95% of my total time of contributing to Wikipedia, searching all the Wiki how to articles concerning image usage, placement, guidelines, ETC... and i could not find one single thing that states that a user must discuss changing the lead image of an article.

Must i discuss changing the lead image on articles?

(My apologies for being long-winded, just thought i would provide all the background to the problem). Dusty777 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No apologies needed, because what you address is actually a bit more complicated than it initially appears. As a general rule, it is "wrong" to revert under the argument "Discuss first". This is discussed at the essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Now, as an "essay" (rather than a guideline or policy), its points aren't binding, but this particular is, in my experience, generally a good rule of thumb.

However, there are some complicating factors in this particular instance. The article Airbus A380 is a Good article. With a good article, there is generally some deference given to the current state of the article, because we know that the article went through a somewhat detailed review of its content, formatting, and references. As such, people who got the article to Good status, or who like the article, often prefer that significant changes be discussed. Changing the main image--that is, the image in the article's infobox, is a pretty significant change. As such, a bit of deference is sometimes given, and it's not unusual for editors to request discussion first (even though by the rules it's not required).

So, while the other user should have given a better reason for reverting, it's not entirely out of the range of ordinary behavior. At this point, the best thing to do is to start a new section on Talk:Airbus A380, explaining why you think the other picture is better. Hopefully, editors can reach a consensus about which they prefer.

let me know if you need more help, any time! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to clear up my problem and the good advice! I appreciate it. =D Dusty777 (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:BruceWHain

That got out of hand pretty badly, didn't it. Anyway, do you care to blank the talk page? I see no reason to keep all those rants and misrepresentations there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a "horrifically unnecessary death spiral" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Luchow's

I've been following the rather strange conversation you're having with User:BruceWHain, but haven't commented there because (a) I have nothing to apologize for, and (b) I have no desire to stir things up. I am concerned, however, about what he plans to do when he comes off his block. I'm sure you were probably planning to anyway, but would you mind keeping Luchow's on your watchlist, and keeping a weather eye on it? It would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's on my watchlist. Just to out of due diligence, I did check the article's talk page, and I saw the exact same kind of massive re-organizing that is occurring on BruceWHain's usertalk, so I have no doubts that an apology is unnecessary. I've got Luchow's on my watchlist. The only positive note so far is that BruceWhain said he would consider dispute resolution; if that happened, then he'd deserve a little bit of space to try to make his arguments (as long as they weren't coupled with disruptive editing on either the article or talk page). As a side note, I am currently refraining from editing the article (so that I can stay un-involved), but it sure looks like it needs work--there's a fair amount of non-neutral/non-encyclopedic phrasing in it ("As the twentieth century was dawning August Lüchow and his restaurant were hitting their stride" and "Riese Brothers was a great black hole of famous New York restaurants," jump out at me on a quick skim)...plus, I don't see why we need sooo much detail--24 citations from Mitchell's book seems like we're trying to retell the story there, rather than provide an encyclopedic overview. But, as I say, involved editors can handle that. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said on Drmies' talk page, I've been trying to edit the article with some delicacy, so as to not to make it unrecognizable to BWH, who, after all, did a lot of work on it -- not that I would epect BWH to appreciate that. But I agree that there's still a lot that can go or be re-phrased in a more encyclopedic manner. Other folks who have edited it are made of sterner stuff and been more liberal in their deletions.

Certainly, if BWH pursues dispute resolution, I'll be glad to give him the space to do that, but I would hope he would begin with talk page discussion as the first step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have been watching this from a distance, and finding it somewhat bizarre. The article needs a lot of work, but the list of notable attendees should go asap: it may be sourced but it is trivial and gives undue weight to those named. There is a sniff of copyvio/close paraphrasing about the whole thing also, but I've got enough on my plate (ahem) elsewhere right now.Although the Pfannkuchen mit Preisselbeeren sounds rather tasty. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been contemplating ordering a used copy of Mitchell's book to see if there are copy violations or close paraphrasing problems, since I'm not seeing in BWH's talk page writing the same qualities that predominate in the article's styyle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I brought up the possibility of copyvios, I wanted to point out that I did indeed get a second-hand copy of the Mitchell book which is the main reference used in the article, and I found no obvious instance of copyright violations, or even too-close paraphrasing, so at least this was not a problem with BruceWHain's contributions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That's good; I also note that a number of editors have started handling the POV/unsourced problems as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor note: if he plans to come blazing out the moment his block drops, that's (I think) about 1:15 am for me, so I won't see it until the next day. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're still watching here...have you seen what's up on his page now? Seriously? I'm not inclined to do anything about it, because he hasn't actually crossed over WP:CIVIL...and he hasn't actually disrupted any articles...but he may want to consider taking of the red costume and backing away from the pretty building. I certainly can't think of anything useful to say on his talk page that won't make it worse.... Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been monitoring his talk page, which is astounding in its demonstration of his unwillingness to understand the most basic things about Wikipedia. As you say, he's only talking at this point, and only on his talk page, but it seems inevitable that, eventually, he'll get frustrated when no one apologizes or steps in to give him what he wants, and he'll try to put his views into action in some way. In the best of all possible worlds, it might be best for someone to block him now, to put him out of his misery and to protect the project from what seems inevitable to happen -- but that's not generally how we do things, and people do change. It's still possible that he may calm down, re-group, and re-think his approach to editing, in which case he could become an asset to the project. At this point I don't think that's probable, but we have to hope for the best, and since his focus is limited to a small number of articles, it's relatively easy to undo any problems he causes if he does decide to take matters into his own hands.

I also see no point in contibuting to his talk page, he clearly wants only one thing from me -- which he's not going to get -- and anything I could say in an attempt to explain things to him would seem likely to upset him further. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on article

Hi. How's the RfC coming? I had hoped we'd have the ball rolling by now. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gomen. Seventeen different directions at once. I did write a draft of the RFC itself at User:Qwyrxian/SI RFC; please take a look. Two things need to happen before it goes live.

I need to draft my own "argument" to go into the "arguments from involved editors". It will likely focus on the points listed in the poorly named "NPOV" column of that table at the SI talk page. I have to decide whether or not I want to pull in links to past discussions as well.
I would prefer that Lvhis review the RFC language and, in general, indicate a readiness to move forward. On Nov 2, xe wrote on xyr talk page that xe is sick, and hasn't edited since. I don't want to move forward precipitously and then later have Lvhis say "that wasn't fair, I didn't get a chance to comment". On the other hand, I'm not going to wait indefinitely--for example, I'm not going to intentionally wait until STSC's topic ban is over just so xe can participate.

And, as context, I'm both busier than usual at work and have a few other WP balls in the air, plus, of course, my regular "watchlist duties", as I think of them. So let me know what you think of the draft, then we'll go from there. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the current draft. John Smith's (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I see that Lvhis has started editing again. I hope you can get this moving again. Otherwise this may easily drag on past Christmas. John Smith's (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've talked. The problem now is me--I don't want to put up the RfC until I have the "SI is the best name" argument ready. I'm really pressed for WP time, especially for the hard work of getting something like that right (I've had about 5 or 6 things that I "promised" to take care of, plus my normal watchlist, etc.). Odds are that the earliest I will be finished is on Wednesday (my time). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Page was tagged for speedy deletion

Hi Qwyrxian,
Duffbeerforme tagged Dethcentrik for speedy deletion citing it on my talk page as a repost, I simply deleted the tag, but I would if possible like to request temporary page protection. On a side note, I will likely be furthering the Død Beverte page on my userspace, and it seems source reliability is sometimes tough to determine, so if it's okay I may occasionally run sources by you. BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I left a note for Duffbeerforme...we'll see what happens from now; he is allowed to take it back to AfD, but I don't know if xe will. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Kite Runner

Thank you for the protection on The Kite Runner. As I'm sure you saw, the same vandalism had been ongoing from multiple IPs & single-article registered users for a week now, so I would have requested protection had you not done it on your own initiative. Your action is much appreciated, and, again, thank you.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And, actually, after I protected, I noticed that another user had requested protection at RFPP. Great minds think alike, right? Since this appears to be more than run-of-the mill vandalism (it sounds like some sort of attack campaign), it may well restart after the protection expires; if I don't notice, feel free to RFPP again to make the protection go longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

SI Arg

Hi. I saw that you've been working on this. I'll have a tinker with it. Let me know what you think, but from what I've seen you can simplify a fair bit. John Smith's (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit. To be honest, do you need to cut it much more? I've read lots of RfCs where people have written 700 words or more for their initial views. It's only the lead point stating the subject to be discussed that needs to be short. John Smith's (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Katarighe's talk page.
Message added 00:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia or not?

Your opinion, please.

Someone has a lot of ceremonial functions, including at The Vatican & as Ambassador for the SMOM (3 citizens, 13k members, 80k volunteers). One specific, one-time event was that they acted as "chief witness" ("best man") at the marriage of a member of the British royal family. The member in question is 29th in line to the throne and a first cousin once removed of the Queen. Is that last role notable enough for inclusion in an article, or is it trivia more suited to Hello or some other magazine - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and YGM - newspaper. - Sitush (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I read the deletion discussion (I saw discussions about it on someone's userpage), but by the time I worked my way through several different articles, I found that I had no opinion at all. Or, perhaps a better way of putting it is that I have an opinion, but it has no basis in policy and thus I can't figure out how to express in wiki-terms. I do know that I am of the general opinion that being "noble" or "royal" does not excuse someone from needing to meet WP:GNG, and further that there are no independent notability guidelines for nobility/royalty, nor is there even an entry in WP:Common outcomes. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not thinking in terms of the deletion discussion. This issue arose after that started, specifically on the article talk pages. There' some socking/editing while logged out going on that will affect the AfD, but that is a different issue. - Sitush (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cthulhu in PC

Greetings Sir! Yes, I agree with you, but that's only half the battle. The part I object to is editors (particularly the IP's) diving in as soon as the protection template is lifted and leaving unsourced claims. Our fellow editors need to learn that statements need to be sourced. Given I spent hours sourcing everything else there I don't think that is an unreasonable ask. Even if something looks obvious, I would be prepared to pull it if someone hasn't bothered to go that extra step.

On an aside, don't forget we have to get back to the H.P Lovecraft template soon! Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

But you don't actually have to source everything. For example, we don't provide sources for the plot summaries of movies, because the movie itself is "the source". The same thing seems to imply here: I don't understand why a sources in needed to demonstrate that a song called "Cthulhu sleeps" is about Cthulhu. This is really no different than not needing a source to say God Bless America is a song about the United States.

Regarding the template, it is in the back of my mind. I fell way behind on WP over the last week; once I catch up, it's on my list of things to do.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

True, not everything has to be sourced, and that's a good example. That said, the PC ephemera can all be easily sourced (e.g. courtesy of professional reviews) if the editor makes the effort. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is up now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take another look. As another player has just appeared and voiced an opinion on the template, it looks to have a good outcome. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Who can delete?

Hey Qwyrxian - What is the policy for deleting a page previously nominated for deletion? For example, the Bahay_Kalinga page has had the deletion tag for >7 days. Can I delete it or is it the admin's job? Also, what about discussions like these, where the discussions have been languishing for almost 3 weeks now. Should we be waiting for an admin to close the discussion? Thanks... Veryhuman (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Only admins can delete pages (non-admins don't have the technical means to delete something). I see that the first page you mention has been tagged for more than seven days...but, oddly, it's not showing up on the report of pages with expired prods. I'm going to look into the technical problems in a moment. On the AfD, note that an admin has acted twice on the article--both User:Davewild and User:TParis decided that more discussion needed to occur. I don't think it should be relisted again, as there is always the option to close something as "No consensus" (which means the article wouldn't be deleted). The last relisting was on 15 November, so another admin should act on it sometime around 22 November. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Helps the learning process :) Veryhuman (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Lal

Just in case you are still watching the Jessica Lal article, yes, I know that I am at three reverts! There was an excess of info about one particular protest group that quite clearly was self-serving and similar stuff has been reappearing in the last few hours. We can make the point without naming the group, IMO. - Sitush (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

breaking a ban? hounding? jokerman?

If this is a violation of my ban as NotBW has suggested, please clear it up to me, but at any rate this seems to be clearly against that which was resolved here at the ANI about NotBW stop wiki-hounding me and even keeping far away from stalking my talk page. Or am I a really a "jokerman"? -- $C laudio S antos ¿ ?$ 20:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, by the time I saw this, it was too late to take any action. this does seem to violate your topic ban, but it's over and past. Night of the Big Wind does need to just stop talking to you...but raising that issue now is both untimely and will only lead to more scrutiny towards yourself, which won't necessarily be pleasant. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RFPP (Vijay Mallya & Kingfisher Airlines)

Thanks for your time. I will revert if there are any further issues noticed on these articles. Normally (for my knowledge), what should be the trigger point for raising such requests? Regards AKS (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It varies based upon the admins judgment. For me, I look for a variety of different factors. If a page is right now experiencing repeated vandalism from more than one user, I'm comfortable immediately semi-protecting for a short time (31 hours usually) to stop the immediate problem. For longer term issues, it gets more complicated. If I see 4 or 5 distinct pieces of vandalism in a week, that's enough for me to protect for a few days to a week (depending on the details). If I see one or two a week, but it's happening every single week for a while, then I may also be inclined to try protection (with the length being long enough to try to "catch" the vandalizer the next time). If the page has been previously protected, my standards will go down, especially if its the same "type" of vandalism (and the period of protection will be longer). However, one additional factor that comes into play is whether or not there are other, "good" IP editors on the page. That is, if a high traffic page is getting a lot of "good" IP edits, even if there are regular problems from other IP editors, I'm less likely to protect, because I don't want to unnecessarily hurt the "good" editors. And finally, if the article is a WP:BLP (or, on any article, if the vandalism is specifically demeaning a specific living person), then my standards go down (I'm more likely to protect sooner), because we have to be especially sensitive to damaging the lives of real people. That's why I was actually a little more inclined to protect Vijay Mallya...but since the vandalism was mostly about his company, rather than him directly, I figured it was just barely safe enough to not protect. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Enquiry ref: a blocked user

Qwyrxian, ref: the block of User:Daneto, I wonder if I might illuminate a little of the problem. Daneto is referencing User:DIREKTOR who has a habit of trolling, accusing and harassing editors. He did it to me and I very nearly got disciplined just for defending myself. I walked away, but Daneto is being stalked by DIREKTOR. If this has anything to do with his block, I can understand why Daneto has posted to users who have also been victimised by DIREKTOR. I hope I haven't done more harm than good. Please reply on my talk page; I have so many issues I'm juggling right now! Thank you. Djathinkimacowboy 08:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page. Djathinkimacowboy 11:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please refrain from using labels such as "problem-editor". User:Djathinkimacowboy is a new user that has, from the start and without provocation, behaved extremely inappropriately towards myself, and continues to post these sort of slanderous threads all over Wikipedia where he likes to "accuse people of excessively accusing people" and throw various absurd claims like "WP:TROLLING", "WP:STALKING" and even "WP:EDIT-WARRING" where no reverts were made at all - all without any kind of basis in reality. He quite obviously does not understand Wikipedia policy (I'm "stalking" someone?), and since he has something against me, he feels it is ok to slander people however he feels like. He no doubt thinks I am "stalking" him by defending myself against this veritable defamation campaign. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, okay. How about I say, "an editor who has been the subject of many ANI reports, and whose behavior has often been criticized in those reports"? Oh, or, "an editor who has been blocked edit warring numerous times"? My use of "problem-editor" was simply a short-hand for these points. I do not believe that I made any comments about your behavior in this particular instance, so my apologies if you felt I was impugning you on this specific issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Was the use of short-hands of that sort necessitous? Or could you have tried to express yourself without evaluating the entirety of a user's contribution to this project in two words? You know, I've had enough. I don't even remember having met you, Qwyrxian, and here you are developing a decidedly negative view about me. I am an editor of five years with some 35,000 edits to my name, but because of User:Djathinkimacowboy, who joined this month, and his slanderous thread-posting campaign all over admin talkpages, people like you are calling me "problem editor"! Next thing you know Jimbo will be telling him to "try his best to put up with me". I didn't want to waste my time, but every time I see Djathinkimacowboy on my watchlist he's posting stuff like the above. I'm through putting up with this, its going up on ANI. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Anita Lerche

Hello – just thought I'd drop by and say thank you for joining in on the Anita Lerche page. I stumbled across the article by accident just after it had been put together by User:TariButtar, and decided to try to make some improvements. I thought it was worth mentioning to you that although I appear to have reverted one of your edits (but only after adding a reference), I agree with the changes you’ve made and appreciate your participation in trying to knock this little article into shape. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. My own involvement there was even more accidental; I had left a note before on TariButtar's page regarding his undiscussed title change on Jat people, which I reverted. That left his page on my watchlist. Soon thereafter, I saw a bot notifying him to stop removing Speedy Deletion tags from an article which he had created. Whenever I see something like that, I get worried about the editor and start checking into their contributions. At this point, I'm still concerned, because TariButtar is doing an awful lot of article work and almost no discussion. But, some of his work is certainly helpful, in that he appears to be adding some good information about currently uncovered topics related to India. So, hopefully everything will work out right on the end.

No worries on the reversion; I do a lot of removal of unsourced and POV info from articles, and I don't mind at all when people replace the removed text with properly sourced, neutral versions. Sometimes I actually get into a "building" mode...but I often working in micro-spurts without time for that kind of work (plus I can only access online sources). If you're interested in her as a singer, I know that the article on Heer from Denmark needs sources; I did a quick search online to confirm that they exist, but actually adding the info is down at the bottom of my "to do" list. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look at Heer from Denmark now (it's my lunch break :) — Hebrides (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

oh! There is a discussion about me. Thanks both of you guys. And dear, Qwyrxian! You've written "but some of his work certainly helpful...", please tell me which?? I wanna know, bcz i'm not so experiensed and that may help me improve. You'r welcome on my talk page. With Thanks! Tari Buttar. —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC).

Coordinates

hello! Please help. I found the coordinates of a place somewhere as below:

latitude: 30.35602 longitude: 74.68834

but how to write them in minutes and secondes? I know about the first one of each that 30 and 74, i know that are called degrees ("latd" on wiki), but there is two other options ask "latm = " and "lats = " same with longitude. Howy to write the coordinates mentioned above in this format?? With thanks Tari 12:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TariButtar (talk • contribs)

Well, looking at Template:Infobox City, you can use either decimal or degrees/minutes/seconds, Since you already have the decimal version, just put it into the latd and longd parameters. If you want to use the other format, then first you need to convert from decimal degrees to the minute/second equivalent. I found a tool from the US government that will do the conversion for you: [1]. For your coordinates above, it says that the equivalent d/m/s format is lat: 30° 21' 21.672" and long: 74° 41' 18.0234". Using that, you would set

latd = 30 latm= 21 lats=21.672

And similarly or longd/m/s. One thing I'm not sure of is if lats/longs can take a decimal number; if not, just round to the nearest decimal.

Does that answer your question? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI report regarding MangoWong

You are not named specifically here but many of the linked items include your comments/administrative intervention, and comments about you also. Just a courtesy note. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tim Kash

There is an OTRS ticket... 2011112410001564. It's not terribly germane, I think, I just happened to see the ticket and went to look at the article. Since I came across it in the course of work, I didn't want to use my volunteer admin rights. Thanks for the protection. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just opened a sock puppet investigation (that's clearly all one user, or maybe a closely knit group of meatpuppets). The thing is, I actually think the sockpuppeteer is correct here in terms of BLP, even/especially if that is, in fact, Kash. Thanks for the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Article: Ali Ibn Abi Talib

Please check my comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali#Aparytai.27s_additions

and make sure that wiki's standards are adhered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutawassam (talk • contribs) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check sources and make edits. and please give the ownership to a person who understand Islamic history, or at least don't allow everybody to make edits.

Regards, --Mutawassam (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. We don't give ownership to everyone--in fact, we explicitly have a guideline called WP:OWN that forbids anyone from having or taking ownership over an article. We work collaboratively. If you want to edit the article, go right ahead; if Aparytai disagree's, xe may revert you, in which case, you keep talking about it on the article talk page. If you and Aparytai disagree, we have what is called dispute resolution where people can seek the advise of more editors. I can't check the sources, because I don't have access to many of the sources you've mentioned (plus, I can't read Arabic, so I can't confirm some of the basic points the two of you are making). In order to aid you two in this process, I have asked for help from WP:Wikiproject Islam, which is basically a group of editors who have an interest in improving articles about Islam. Hopefully someone from there will come to help. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India

The article is in a better state compared to what it was some time back. But still some major issues need to be addressed like the excessive listings of people, companies, media entries, etc. I just wanted to ask for your opinion before trimming those lists for a better look of the article. If you give me a clear signal, I'll start. Thank you. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with that; I'm still only about 1/2 way through with copy-editing, but it's actually easier to copy-edit after major content edits have finished. As always, take any disagreements to the article talk page; and while it's not required, if you do take out something major, especially something cited, it might help to copy it to the talk page (you can use a collapse box if it's too long), that way it's easier for other editors to review and re-use if needed in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Lvhis

Looks like he won't join the RfC. A shame, but his loss if he just sulks. John Smith's (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I think I'll add a note to the other position, just for reference. The RfC will proceed, if there is a good result then we won't have to worry about the issue for a while. I actually want to re-raise one of the other older issues on the dispute page (the one where I actually agreed with Bobthefish2), but I want this to finish first...so some time at the beginning of the next year. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I was thinking we might need to put forward something for his position. Well done for doing that. John Smith's (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Your recent editing history at [[:Newman College, Perth]] shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. I'm not going to revert you again and move this edit war along, but you are getting close. I have raised the issue for discussion at Talk:Newman_College,_Perth#Regarding_the_removal_of_guilds.2Ffactions_.28diff.29 and brought the issue to the attenion of the concerned projects WP:EIA and WP:WPSCH. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Explained on your talk why I'm still only at 2 reverts on that article, and won't do any more at the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Danjel's talk page.
Message added 12:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ashridge Park F.C.

Why did you delete the article Ashridge Park F.C. I was currently in the middle of editing and adding references, I find what you did extremely rude, get that page back immediatly and keep your nose out of other peoples businesses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordaniair (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, part of my "business" as an administrator is looking at pages that other people have tagged for speedy deletion and determining whether or not they meet the criteria listed. The Ashridge Park F.C. page definitely met that criteria--specifically, there was no claim of importance or significance in that article. There was no indication that they were any more or less important than the average amateur FC club, and certainly no indication that they were important as an organization in general. However, despite your rude manner, there is a way I can help. I have put a copy of that article in your sandbox, which is a place you can temporarily work on it. If, over the next week or so, you can improve it enough for it to meet our notability requirements, then I can move it back into mainspace for you. If not--that is, if you find that the club doesn't meet the notability requirements--then it can be deleted again. Note that the main thing you should be looking for are sources that are independent of the club, such as newspapers, magazines, television news reports, etc., that discuss the club in detail. Note that a simple mention of their existence will not be enough. If you have questions, and are willing to be polite about it, please ask me and I'll help. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A note on cuts from "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"

Hello - I observe that you have cut three sections from the page that covers Garrett Lisi's An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything. I agree that the sections that were cut were far too detailed. In mid 2008 I also recommended to shorten these sections to User:Scientryst, and instead have the material built on a personal or institutional page that is owned by someone intimately involved with the theory. I have sent Dr Lisi an e-mail about the shortening here, and recommended this approach as well. Wikipedia is not the proper place for a synthesis of such detail, but right now too much has been cut. The pieces that I think should remain in Wikipedia is Lisi's approach of first finding a symmetry for the graviweak force, before then attempting to unify this with the strong force. The symmetry of the graviweak force is already proposed to be modeled by an exceptional Lie group, with is a novelty. I am confident that once the detailed original synthesis that you have (appropriately) removed from Wikipedia is rebuilt elsewhere with open access, that this will in turn allow editors here to shorten the material to an encyclopedic overview.

There is an observation, however, from the comment you left in your removal. You wrote: "Per discussion on the talk page, this much, this detailed, and this technical information is not appropriate, given that the theory is basically unaccepted in the community; more cuts may be appropriate later". I find this very unfortunate. The argument that the theory is basically unaccepted in the community is inflammatory and misleading. By that token, any other current unification proposal would be "unaccepted by the community" as well, as there are several that all have problems, and each are incompatible with one another and can therefore not be "accepted" generally. Two prominent examples, Pati-Salam and Georgi-Glashow would also be "not accepted" given e.g. the absence of a fourth color charge or proton decay in the measurement. Talking about acceptance would entirely miss the point, of course, over the past 37 years of study of these two important models there have been great advances made in understanding their implications, possible extensions, and ways to deal with new experimental data once it comes along. Garrett Lisi's model, in contrast, is just 4 years young and is facing challenges that are absent from Pati-Salam or Georgi-Glashow. The one challenge that stuck with me is the claim that the Spin-statistics theorem is not applicable since the underlying manifold does not have a metric. I am not an expert here, but to me this removes the justification to do field theory a priori. From what I read in the subsequent papers by Lisi, and then Lisi/Smolin/Speziale, this is one of the problems at hand under current investigation. Therefore, even though I am personally not interested in following this investigation in detail, I am comfortable that others are. May they be successful and prove my speculation wrong! The 2010 Banff conference was a big deal for the overall effort, and proves that mathematicians are indeed interested in investigating what can be made with E8 theory going forward. I urge great caution with any of the anonymous contributors here in Wikipedia, it appears to me as if you were misled into believing that Lisi's theory would not be studied anymore. Hopefully my comments are helpful to you. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I don't actually understand the physics presented (I quit physics after taking basic QM). What I do understand is that no one has been able to provide any reliable sources that aren't directly connected to Lisi showing any support for this theory at all; what sources have been provided are generally critical. Wikipedia is not a forum to present proposed scientific (or other) theories; rather, our only job is to talk about what other people have already found notable. And, as far as I can tell, outside of Lisi and a small number of supporters, most of the physics community does not consider Lisi's theory notable. Now, the theory still deserves a place in WP, because it did receive a fair amount of popular press. But that is what the article should focus on: the coverage in non-scientific sources, and a very basic overview of the theory itself. Now, if you were to show support or discussion of this theory in independent sources, then the issue might change. But that article was significantly longer than our coverage on well-established and respected scientific theories, and that simply isn't appropriate. However, if you want to propose specific changes, I recommend doing so on the article talk page, so that other editors can comment as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

IP editor User talk:68.4.61.51, whom you blocked for edit warring, is removing content from the Corona del Mar High School article again without any discussion. Please review this and this. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 connection

Blackvisionit is in italy. http://members.fortunecity.it/blackvisionit/emufdd_en.htm redirects to his web page, and you said "Blackvisionit has stated that Powerlife was used during a transition between it.wiki and en.wiki" [2]

IP Address 137.204.148.73 resolves to proxy-almanet.cib.unibo.it That's the Universita' degli Studi di Bologna, a University in Bologna, Italy.

On Blackvisionit's website, under "University material" are several papers labeled "Bologna" [3] I don't know enough Italian to narrow it down to the university.

IP 137.204.148.73 may have been assinged to different different users at different times, but is clearly the present user from at least 14 October 2011 where it was used to re-insert the pinout table [4] that was originally put there by Blackvisionit when he created the page [5] (Note the same background:whitesmoke;color:black tags)

The above was a re-insertion of the table after it was deleted by Rwessel[6]

Previous to that (same day) the same table was added by IP address 130.136.4.212 [7] 130.136.4.212 Which also resolves to cs.unibo.it - the same University in Bologna

Administrator User:HelloAnnyong determined that the IP addresses 79.45.39.176, 93.48.130.200, 93.48.143.214 and 93.48.129.148 were "clearly the same person - or working in collusion with each other" [8]

79.45.39.176 resolves to host176-39-dynamic.45-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it That's the Telecom Italia regional hub in Verona, Italy, headquartered 100 kilometers from Bologna (confirmed through http://www.ip-adress.com/)

The three 93.48 IP addresses are from Fastnet Italy. They are in Bolzano, Rovereto, and Trento Italy, in the same region as Bologna and Verona. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I've read this, and am thinking about what to do. For the moment, nothing specific needs to be done, unless 137... starts reverting/re-adding again. But I'm still watching the article; I may also need to ask other admins for advice (or maybe even bring this to SPI or COIN again). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do SPI COIN activity. Stop paranoid fancies. 137.204.148.73 (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

He has started re-adding material again.[9] Looking at the changes with an engineer's eye, they appear to be a combination of wording changes where either wording is arguably correct and an attempt to shape the article so as to focus on the low-level details of the particular kind of emulator he sells (PC compatible) and away from what Rwessel, Wtshymanski and myself are going for, which is a more encyclopedic and less specific article that covers emulators designed for PCs, Macintosh, Commodore, etc. equally. All without any userpage discussion other than repeatedly accusing me of wrongdoing, of course. --Guy Macon (talk)

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:137.204.148.73_reported_by_User:Guy_Macon_.28Result:_.29 -Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blackvisionit --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated

Talk:List_of_Ezhavas#Sources.2C_BLP_.26_notability. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)