User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

Hungarian air force equipment

You protected the Hungarian air force page, but I feel there is some incorrect information. The article states that there are only around two attack helicopters, however, many sources, including a website about European defence states that there are fifteen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Then what you and other editors need to do is to start providing those sources. That article is badly in need of them. Start by providing those sources on the article's talk page, please, then we can start to figure out how to unprotect. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

(comment from a random passerby) We have a big problem with unsourced lists of military equipment. Unfortunately, sometimes enthusiasts make up their own additions (or numbers). Better sourcing is our best defence, to ensure that these lists are kept accurate. If a list can't be supported by good sources, it may be better to delete it, rather than risk presenting false information to readers. bobrayner (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I could stub the article, but actually taking it to AfD would result in a certain keep, since some people believe that almost all lists related to notable subjects are notable, and that's the only thing we need to keep such a list. However, stubbing it is possible. I'm currently acting as an admin on the article (I fully protected it) so I can't edit it also, but you're welcome to either tag as needing citations or even remove information that isn't sourced once the protection lapses. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. There *will* be good sources out there - military inventories & procurement get much better coverage in Europe (compared to the woeful state of some of our articles on developing countries). 71.103.231.98: Which source did you have in mind? I've watchlisted the page... bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Warlords

Thank you for placing protection on The Warlords. It was a bizarre situation dealing with this IPs & hopefully this will help! --SpyMagician (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you teach me a bit how to work short footnote citation?

I'm sorry to bother you. I seriously need your help. I've tried asking WP:Help desk, but they don't understand my question, and I can't figure out what I've done wrong here. In The Matrix (film) article, I need to use short footnote citation. A user added this:

And it works perfectly. It appears in the ref list right below, then the link in the ref list links to the full citation in the Bibliography section.

I tried something similar, and added: , but it simply doesn't work. It appears in the ref list all right, and if you click the number of this ^ SFN, it links you to the ref list, but the link in the ref list won't lead to/link to the full citation below. Normally, when you click the link in the ref list, it should jump to the full citation and highlights it, but mine doesn't. I believe I messed up the syntax and template somehow, so the anchor won't work here, unlike the previous user's. Can you help me by telling where I went wrong? The Help Desk doesn't understand my question. They thought I simply added the SFN without the full citation below, while the problem is that the link in the ref won't be anchored to the full citation. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Bibliography

• Clover, Joshua (2004). The Matrix. BFI Modern Classics. London: BFI Publishing. ISBN 1844570452. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

• Wachowski, Larry; Wachowski, Andy (2000), Lamm, Spencer (ed.), The Art of The Matrix, Titan Books Ltd (published 24 November 2000), ISBN 1840231734 {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Anthonydraco. Sfns can be awkward to get your head round but that article (Matrix) seems to be using several different citation styles anyway and thus is not really how we are supposed to do things. Is there any desperate need to use Sfns? I've not checked the talk page but there is guidance on the more general issue of how cites should be formed for consistency.

The Help Desk people do seem to have answered your query but the nature of this Sfn beast can make it difficult to convey the message. I could probably fix it for you but I do think that it would be best first to get some sort of consensus regarding which citation style should be preferred, otherwise the confusion is likely to continue whether it involves you or some other contributor. - Sitush (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush, it works now. Another techy help-desker found the topic on the desk and fixed it for me. He told me what I did wrong. I need to list all the name with parameter 'last'. Thanks for the offer. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope that between Sitush and the help desk you got it straightened out, because I actually don't know how to use sfn. In fact, I don't like using anything other than name defined references; I find all other citation styles to be unnecessarily complex, though I do understand that in articles about broad historical subjects there is often a need for other styles when you have to cite many pages from the same work. However, Sitush does make a good point--please don't change citation styles half way (i.e., you have to change all the refs if you're changing one), and you can't do that until you get agreement on the talk page first. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sendiaocletai Islands debacle

Qwyrxian, I've always found you to be one of the more reasonable editors around the Pinyukutai Islands articles. Recently, some other regulars have given me a hard time for an edit I made to Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands dispute, which I truly believe to be uncontroversial. Part of the opposition seems to have to do with personality factors (who "I am"), rather than the substance of the addition, which worries me. At your leisure, I would appreciate it if you could look at the discussion and have a comment. Shrigley (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just come back after a few days away from Wikipedia, so I've got a bunch of watchlist catching up to do. I'll probably get a chance to look at it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlocking

I request you to move the page from full protection to semi protection as i am in a position that no edit wars will happen on main article instead would be discussed on talk page only.You may keep track on both of us.See (Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan#Unlocking).Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 17:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Restore UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald to my user space

Hello Qwyrxian, can you please restore UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald? I intend to make a 2013 omnibus article for UFC. Thanks in advance! Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, been away for a few days; I've userfied per your request. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not ?

Why not -- John Cena origin is importent to know .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.al (talk • contribs)

Then provide a high quality reliable source. That website is very much not reliable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh my God ??????

http://www.biography.com/people/james-belushi-20851499 http://www.jimbelushi.ws/biography.htm http://www.moviesection.de/schauspieler/426-James_Belushi

That are all reliable sources. Please make that right. You are a adminstrator not a Anti-Albanian. Please stop that. or I will take complaints by wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.al (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I checked again; the only one of those that is reliable is the jimbelushi website, probably; it seems like it's his official website, so that should be fine...i'm a little worried because I can't find an official statement that it's really his and not a fans, but it seems likely to be his. You can re-add the info, but please don't add it to the lead of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You must have been in the Christmas spirit ... I wouldn't jumop quickly if someone issued an insulting ultimatum such as "You are a adminstrator not a Anti-Albanian. Please stop that. or I will take complaints by wikipedia". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And now, a few sections below, you can see that he "likes me". Honestly though, not only am I not anti-Albanian...I must admit that beyond the fact that it's in Eastern Europe I know absolutely nothing about ALbania (well, I guess I now know that Jim & John Belushi are of Albanian descent...so that's two things). Though given the highly charged feelings, I bet that if I checked that if I checked, they'd be covered by one set of Arbcom sanctions or another. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Although it's true that they're under sanctions, Mr Belushi would be rolling over in his grave (possibly with laughter) to find his article is now under sanctions. But yes, feel free to drop the warning on them :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry.

Okay, I'm sorry. I like you! Thankyou, you have make that correct, thankyou ! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony.al (talk • contribs) 22:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your query on my talk page

I've slightly revised the opening sentence to my last response on my talk page. My apologies: I misread what you asked. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Hello. I would be obliged if you could semi-protect the article Ra.One; I'm currently undertaking a clean-up to bring it to FA status, and IP edits are affecting the process. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One IP edit in 7 days, and not even vandalism at that, is not sufficient to warrant semi-protection, sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Happy New Year, Qwyrxian, with my best wishes to you and to your beloved ones... --E4024 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, you too! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Since you were the administrator that fully protected List of WWE personnel less then a week ago I thought I would like to drop it your way that the stubborn editor that continues to push his views and ignore others has continued to war with other editors on the Template:WWE personnel also while staying away from the other page. I have personally stayed out of it on these occasions except for the discussions which Jobber seems to be avoiding constantly even blanking a discussion started by Vjmlhds on the talk page shows how he does not want to work together on anything. The only reason im bringing it up to you is because templates as you know are used on many articles so they should always be uncluttered by these kind of changes constantly. STATic message me! 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked WWEJobber for a month, as it was textbook edit warring against multiple other editors without reaching consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth100's userbox

I didn't see that you had asked him to change his userbox... I didn't mean to usurp your request for him to change that. But now that it's deleted, it's probably for the best. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. On user page stuff, there tends to be a little more leeway, so we often ask a user before taking more drastic steps (except in the case of spam/promotional accounts). But the other admin felt it was so sufficiently bad that it qualified for speedy deletion, which is fine by me. I was also thinking of the fact that since I publicly declare (see my user page) that I live in Japan, that he'd argue I was being unreasonably sensitive. But, I agree, it's much better that it's deleted. There is a way to express a similar sentiment without the virulence (for example, he could put up a userbox supporting Sea Shepherd) if he still wants. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Jane Velez-Mitchell

Thank you for protecting the article. I had a problem with the same vandal last year. Kept on vandalizing the articles on Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchelll. I will keep an eye on Nancy`s article and notify you if he strikes on that article.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Single women in Japan who are over 25 years old are referred to as Christmas cakes

I posted a comment at Talk:Christmas cake re your edit there. If I don't hear back, I'll assume you've changed your mind about that edit and I'll change it back. Sparkie82 (t•c) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, as I'd forgotten to watchlist the page. I've responded there on talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

173.89.153.66

Hi again!

Remember when we first chatted about 24.208.13.171, I mentioned this isp, and how we over on the Kim Possible Wikia have determined they are the same individual, being from the same city and making the exact same edits, both there and here?

Well he's back. Could I ask you to look into "him" and see if you need to or can deal with them? I figure why this isp remained silent for as long as it did was they were away visiting and *this* isp a home computer. ::shrug:: All I know is they are getting very tiresome. On any one of the sites I Admin I'd have dealt with them a bit more definitively -- ZigZagStudios (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

forgot to mention yesterday that I did block the other IP for 2 weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -- ZigZagStudios (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Earth100

He's removing cn-span tags again ([1]). In that edit, he's referencing events on December 26, 27, and 29 with a source published on December 28. I tried explaining to him on his talk page that such a reference couldn't possibly be correct, especially for the events on the 29th, but he responded with, "Patient please, patient Inks" and reverted my edit, and added a template saying, "This Talk page is HEAVILY Patrolled by annoying User:Inks.LWC. Any message, is expected to be watched by User:Inks.LWC, so for the sake of privacy, please reply in your own Talk Page. Thank You." to his talk page. At the last AN/I, you said you'd deal with any such recurrences of removal of templates, but I know you had the issue with his anti-Japan template, so if you'd like me to take this to AN/I for any COI reasons, just let me know. But something has to be done... the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject is honestly one of the best on the site in terms of keeping our information referenced properly, and the cn-span tags make it easier for us to find what exactly needs a reference so we can go back and add one. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would, in fact, prefer if you take it to ANI. I'm trying to bring more of my non-obvious blocks to ANI recently to try to get community consensus. In particular, I recommend noting the edit summary calling your edit "extreme vandalism", which actually counts as a personal attack (which he's been told about before). Let me know when you bring it and I'll try to comment as well (though I may not be around WP much for the next 3-4 days due to New Year's holidays). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind; I hadn't realized that that "annoying editor" part was a box placed at the top of his user page. I've warned him for personal attacks before, and this just has to stop. I've blocked him for 3 days; i hope this will make him realize that civility isn't optional. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please Need Your Help

Could You Please Change Actor Jack O'Connell's nationality to irish-english as he is half irish so please can you make that edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.65 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one getting these requests; I must have gotten near a dozen by now. I keep removing them without comment, but the IP editor keeps asking. Worse he/she is IP hopping across the 122.163. range, which geolocates to Delhi, India, so there's no practical way to get feedback to him/her. Argh! --Drmargi (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've tried responding on my talk page, on the IP's talk, and I think maybe even on the article (where the matter has been extensively discussed). The problem is that we will never make this change--his nationality is British. While it is true that he has admitted to half-Irish ancestry/ethnicity, we will only include that information in the body of the article (which we did), but WP:MOSLEAD says we never put ethnicity into the lead. I'm also just removing them w/o comment, and hoping that at some point the IP will give up. Or get an account which we could communicate with. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the actor (he/she used to ask about an actress as well, name long forgotten), so I'd never go near the article, much less be competent to make a judgment on nationality. I must have run across the editor somewhere along the line and agreed with him/her about something, so I'm their go-to person, along with you. Not a clue why they'd contact me otherwise. We're doing much the same thing, and I can't see what other options there are. --Drmargi (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too

Dear Qwyrxian, I also need your help in an issue that is disturbing me profoundly. Could you please use your admin buttons, before you leave for holidays, so that I may also enjoy mine a little bit more without this bad feeling in me, to remove the Personal Attack on me and sanction it if you deem justified. All the best and thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that that rises to the level of a personal attack, unless that phrase has some special cultural meaning for you of which I am unaware. Except in very clear cut cases, you shouldn't redact another person's comments; instead, first ask the person on his/her talk page to remove what you consider offensive. Of course, that might not work out so well in this case since your initial post on that article's talk page was itself a bit uncivil, since you came right out swinging and accusing the other person of editing in bad faith. If the problem escalates, I recommend taking the matter to ANI...but be sure that your own behavior is ideal throughout the process, as your own behavior might be scrutinized in such a process. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That user had the pic of a so-called monument to ASALA in his TP until I moved a few strings and got it removed. (No guarantee the pic will not come back and the worst is to have people here who support terrorism.) I told this person, in a moment of despair, that those terrorists killed a familiar of mine; although I see no reason to personalise our activity here. Now calling me a friend I do not know what is intended but I have no terrorist friends and this user certainly is not one of my friends. I will not bother you again; I will administer my affairs myself. You admins may extend your feet on a low table and see on TV news how terrorists are, eating your favourite snack... --E4024 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but in the last month I can't find any picture being removed from Yerevanci's user page, nor any case of you discussing anything on his page. Could you clarify for me what discussion and/or picture you're talking about? Is this something that happened farther in the past? In any event, though, WP:NPA is generally interpreted fairly strictly; my guess is that, if the background is as you say, most people would classify the comment as uncivil; this would warrant a warning or request to withdraw the comment, not an outright deletion. I will go ahead and ask the user on your behalf. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There have never been any discussion about my userspace content and it's not his business to discusses it. If there have been a discussion about the picture of the memorial photo which I did have on my userpage, then please provide us with the link. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Move

Can you please delete 2013 in UFC and move (without redirect) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2013 in UFC to it's place so history is maintained ? ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done, with some info left on Oskar's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wish

Hi,Belated "MERRY CHRISTMAS" and Happy new year in advance.I forgot for a little while that you are English.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 09:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Thanks for explaining me the rules. I'm not a frequent editor. But what I did was I did just because I thought it is right. I didn't saw any reason for removing a well sourced, credible info. I'll mind the rules hereafter anyway..:) Thank you.. --rahul (talk2me) 09:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Wishing you a very “Happy NEW YEAR“ filled with joy, prosperity and happiness.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, best wishes to you, too! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan

Hello there is discuss going on at Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan#Edit Request where users express their view for some matter but good thing is that there is no edit warring in the article.Then please read it and give your suggestion.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Q, it is no big deal but I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_review_requested in relation to the BLP caste issue because I'd rather not trawl around those admins who already have an involvement in India articles. Hopefully, there will be no drama. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RFCs

Just a random conversation sparked by your comment that "it is not unusual to get only three uninvolved editors at an RFC" - in the past month there have been 108 RFCs - is there anything we can do to improve the way this workload is handled? Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Well, I definitely don't have an answer, but I'm going to lay out what I think is the problem...sometimes that helps.

• RfCs, by definition, are a problem that 2 more people who already have an interest in the subject find intractable. This means that..
  • The problems are often quite difficult. If they were obvious, they'd probably have already been solved.
  • The problems often require some sort of "expert" knowledge on the subject. Not in the sense of college-professorship expertise, but more knowledge than the average person would gain from average schooling. This either limits the participants to those who already have such knowledge (who may already be involved) or those willing to do a lot of up front research.
  • RfCs are generally come to after substantial amounts of prior disagreement; this means that a responsible commentor has to wade through a lot of TP reading to figure out what's already been said on the matter.
• RfCs often deal with complex problems, especially when good editors are involved, because simpler problems can often be solved with noticeboard discussions. Thus, RfCs are either deal with a complex intersection of problems or editorial discretion, (like, "We've got 5 sources saying 5 different things, how do we figure out the right weight for each theory?").
• The "worst" RfCs involve long term problems, and are actually covers for POV-wars. Getting involved in any of these runs the potential for long term unpleasantness.
• Especially with the POV-war RfCs, the end result of participating in one may be a big fat nothing. RfCs, especially those with low participation or that are POV-wars, may end with one side unconvinced, the disagreement ongoing, and may just be a stepping stone to mediation or arbitration. This can make participation feel meaningless, or, worse, may involve the editor getting roped into a longterm raft of unpleasantness.

All of the above are reasons why those who may actually be helpful may not want to get involved in RfCs. So...I'll think on this and see if I come up with any ideas. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right a lot of RfCs are very difficult, one way or another (though usually it's not an academic challenge). However many are not. For example I just !voted on one in MoS about bolding, which was unanimous. There maybe is some mileage in reviewing the status of RFCs dynamically, and making extra efforts to promote those not getting any take-up. Or indeed in looking to smarter ways to advertise them to WikiProjects, Noticeboards etc. Rich Farmbrough, 03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Dabangg 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks in advance. Fideliosr (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka & intoronto

Intoronto adding disputed material without consensus and calling its removal vandalism. He seems unwilling to discuss anything. Can you do something about this? SinhaYugaya (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I can; I've blocked Intotoronto indefinitely for edit warring, and yourself for 24 hours. But I've explained in more detail on your talk and will gladly accept a sooner unblock given your cooperation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian you should not have blocked as per WP:Involved and the editing were done by 3 editors including Intertoto.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Except I'm not in any way WP:INVOLVED; if you think I am, first, re-read the policy. If you still think so, raise the issue at WP:ANI, though you may want to note that several other editors very clearly explained on the article's talk page that I'm not involved. The third person, Mediran, is not actually involved in the page, and reverted using Huggle, thinking it was vandalism (since it was blanking without an edit summary). Their involvement is already documented on SinhaYugaya's talk page, and clearly doesn't fall under edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind Qwyrxian, can you expand on your block of SinhaYugaya? They appear to be a new user, who hasn't had time to become aware of many of our policies, and who did post on the talkpage and discuseed on another user's talkpage. A block for a second revert with no talkpage warning surprises me. Regards, CMD (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I knew that the user had been here long enough to know about the prior edit warring on the article that lead to full protection, along with my explanation on the talk page that any edit warring after the protection lapsed would lead to a block. However, looking at the user's contribution history, I see that they've been here for a shorter time than I had expected. It may be that in my desire to appear impartial I was too harsh on a new user. I would be open to unblocking, particularly if another admin thinks it's a good idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

GOALWAY

Look, I appreciate the concern, but I know how to do my job and I don't anyone here on Wiki to ruin my life's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOALWAY (talk • contribs)

Alright fine, it it's to keep me from getting blocked on wiki. You know what, I don't even care anymore. I mean as long as all Jordanian footballer profiles here on Wiki don't miss any accurate info or don't have inaccurate info, then I'm fine with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GOALWAY (talk • contribs)

Have a shirt

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

About the UBC Okanagan to University of British Columbia Okanagan change

I've received a message from you about the UBC Okanagan to University of British Columbia Okanagan change. I respectfully believe that University of British Columbia Okanagan should be the right name for the article while the UBC Okanagan is simply an abbreviation. I tried the "Move" request, but it didn't work. jlog3000 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I did move it to that name. If an article already exists with a history, an admin has to perform the move (basically, they have to delete the target before moving, which non-admins can't do). It can still be done, but you have to ask for an admin to do it at WP:RM. Cutting and pasting, as I mentioned, breaks the license. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How shall I say to request to that page WP:RM? jlog3000 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to--I already moved it. If you want to do something like that in the future, just go to WP:RM, to the section WP:RM#Requesting technical moves. As long as it's uncontroversial, it will probably be done within a week or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. Then I thank you for taking your time for giving me that advice, which I'll keep that in mind for future references. jlog3000 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He's baaaack

And up to his old tricks again. Of course, I mean User 76.97.19.69, who has been blocked repeatedly for the same edit on the page COPS, Diff Up the same stuff that has got him banned repeatedly. NECRAT^{Plates On} 05:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also

While you're at it, this user, who has been blocked before, for bad editing, continues to edit badly, and has most of his stuff reverted. He's also gone back to editing templates, despite being asked not to. NECRAT^{Plates On} 05:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Virbhadra Singh‎

If you have the time, please could you take a look at my recent restoration of Virbhadra Singh‎ to a prior version. As my edit summary says, I ran out of patience trying to sort out a mess of fake refs that appear to have been added in recent days. Justified? - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this falls under the "AGF is not a suicide pact." The other editor(s) either have poor reading comprehension, were synthesizing in other material without noticing, or were deliberately misusing sources. Once you see a number of info not legitimatley covered in sources, there's a point where you just have to give up and say "Start over again; I know that at least X points so far have been flat out wrong, so at this point I shouldn't have to nitpick through everything just to see if there's anything worth salvaging." I'm sure some editors might disagree with me, but that's what I'd probably do. The only exception I'd make was if I was looking at a new page, one that I thought had at least something recoverable underneath; then I'd probably be more likely to dredge through for whatever crumbs I could find. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I just used WP:PACT at User_talk:Sitush#Virbhadra Singh. One of the two possible contributors of the dodgy info appears to have called it a day. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"stalking"

hello;

i do believe you have just "stalked" me ^__^

your contribs list shows no recent previous interest in the "jelq" article, nor in articles about sexual content.

you edits are also just a bit "sweeping"

an admin should know better than to act in this way.

respectfully,

Lx 121 (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As with our external links guideline, you're misunderstanding WP:STALK. Note that the page it redirects to explicitly says, " Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.". Based upon the multiple, fundamental errors you showed in Wikipedia policy at the Spam blacklist page, I was concerned with your editing in general. As such, I took a look at your recent contribution list, and saw your comment to Cantaloupe. After taking a look, that article had massive problems, which I attempted to correct. I began by removing the "sources" which directly violate WP:RS. Then I removed the information not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Then I looked for sources in Google News, Books, and Scholar, and couldn't find any. Given that there did not appear to be any reliable sources for the subject, I nominated it for deletion. All of these are normal behaviors, fully policy compliant. I hope this explains my actions sufficiently. I'm not trying to cause you stress (WP:STALK), but, instead, trying to improve Wikipedia. Hopefully in the process you'll become more familiar with our policies and guidelines; I will, of course, answer any questions you have, as I did on the spam-blacklist page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Grand Prince Royal Jinan

Dear, Wiki administrators.

I was quite angry because you guys blocked my legitimate article on Grand Prince Jinan. After all, this is quite personal because he is my (figuratively speaking) grandfather and Sejong the great is our ancestor’s baby brother. So, I was angry cause you were challenging me.

My article is posted and legitimately posted. My other agents are stop working for your sake. Unblock my website. It is pretty legitimate website that you shouldn’t tinker with, or you can come to South Korea to deal with me.

Lee, Jyong Chul.
Founder and CEO
The Korean Monarchy and the Korean Royal Armed Forces Korea Reunification Party
(22nd in line House of Grand Prince Royal Jinan)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SpotDays (talk • contribs) 20:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that User:SpotDays, creator of the new article Grand Prince Royal Jinan, with the same See Also links previously pushed by User:Jyongchul and their socks. Is it a coincidence? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I've blocked the user (again). I'm going to let the article stand for now; I've asked WP:WikiProject Korea to see if anyone there can help with finding actual sources. It can always be removed later if necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

this is just an observation, but it seems to me that you are dealing here with a person whose first/native language is (probably/presumably) korean, rather than english. perhaps it would be helpful to seek assistance from a (fluently bilingual) korean-wiki admin? it is quite possible that a great deal of the problem here is being caused by mutual-misunderstanding...

Lx 121 (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that that could help. Unfortunately, in the past, I've tried to find en.wiki editors fluent in Korean, and haven't been able to spot any that 1) regularly edit and that 2) are established users (such that I know they could carry the right message). Do you know of any? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember like it was yesterday When it all went away A new age dawned on me Brighter days came to thee But you shot him with bullet holes You never counted though He would rise from the grave Spread you with an Eagle and bring back those better days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.34.28 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A discussion which involves you

Wikipedia talk:Requests for undeletion#Merging REFUNDED articles.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the...

... second reply of Sitush here where he is talking about his health issues! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I have reported on Dispute resolution Noticeboard regarding the difference in opinion between myself and User:Vensatry pertaining Cinema of Andhra Pradesh article, the opening comments are required to be started by Vensatry, but he appears not to be participating in it, an automated message i see being posted on his talk page a day ago and I see his numerous edits for several hours after the message. If he does not participate will it be my win automatically, after a certain predefined time ? Or I hope I would not just be waiting like that with out a solution in either's favor? RTPking (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the other party usually has a few days to respond. Note, of course, that the goal of dispute resolution isn't "winning"...it's about resolving (i.e., finding an equitable, policy compliant result) that every can consent to. Let's wait and see what happens. I know that sometimes I personally will have time to edit, but won't actually have the energy to do something as complex and thoughtful as DR, so sometimes I leave that for a day or two while I formulate a response. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should start an RFC for everyone's consent as you mentioned ? And if you think I start the RFC should it be after the DR is done ? Please comment RTPking (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You definitely can't start the RfC now--you can only pursue one DR at a time, because otherwise people end having to comment in 2 different places about the same thing. As to whether or not an RfC will be needed after the DRN discussion finishes (or is closed for lack of interest) will depend on how that turns out. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahirs

Don't know if you're watching Ahirs, but it might need some admin action if the edits from IP 223.18x continue, and I'm without mop at the moment. (Also, I think caste articles should be named in the singular - but I can't move it over the redirect) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the article and put it on my watchlist. I see you've already given 223.18x the caste warning, which is good. What I'll have to be careful is to remember not to edit the article :). I have, in the past, taken administrative actions on pages, or watchlisted them with the intention of watching out for the need for admin actions...and then a week later I forget and start editing it like normal, and then I'm WP:INVOLVED. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I try to be careful to not edit the caste articles myself, though I think it's ok to do the occasional revert of unsourced nonsense. (And I have to say, the change to make the article say "The main and traditional occupation of Ahirs is cow-herding & ruling" did actually make me laugh). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I recall recently some other IP/SPA on a different article actually saying those two thing are compatible (or perhaps they were saying cowherding and Brahmin status were compatible; I don't recall which) due to the extreme devotion to the sacred cow in Hinduism. Nonetheless, I sincerely doubt that the "rulers" were the ones milking and shoveling. But it might be interesting, "We are at the enemy's gate, we have routed their army, and the only thing that stands between them and us is...we need to go milk the cows. So, later, then?" Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"...and get one of the other kings to go put the kettle on!" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Christmas cake (cont.)

Continuing the discussion at: Talk:Christmas cake#Christmas cake as a Japanese term... Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Tirumala Venkateswara Temple

• User:Vasanth.Krish pande
• User:Sunil.prakash.pande
• User:JohnThomas.Yes

These three users have been created only today and their only edits have been the Talk page of Tirumala Venkateswara Temple... very fishy.

They seem like User accounts created by Eshwar.om, as these are the only accounts which are in support of Eshwar.om Do you think I should initiate a request for a sock puppet investgation ? Or would you take care of it ?

RTPking (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is already taken care of By Shriram the Eshwar.om is blocked. RTPking (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of event is a good reason to start an SPI. I've struck the !votes on the move discussion. The discussion can just stay open for another few days/week, and then closed as obviously not supported. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. RTPking (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks Karthikeyan.pandian (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request

Hi, Qwyrxian. The account Amilton Ministry of Christ (talk · contribs · count) it is locked due cross-wiki spam and multiple accounts. "Amilton Ministry of Christ" In fact it is AMILTON DE CRISTO (talk · contribs · count), that it is locked for same reasons. What about different speedy deletion criteria, had only one criteria (CSD G5). Greetings, Érico Wouters ^msg 16:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A, thank you, when you tagged it the account wasn't blocked and locked. I should have guessed a cross-wiki issue, since you're a global sysop. As for other criteria, you could have probably used WP:CSD#G11; some en.wiki admins are still a little hesitant to use that on a user talk page, and might just blank it instead, but if the account is blocked and locked, that's pretty much going to have the same effect. Thanks for the update! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, in next time I will use G11 :). Érico Wouters ^msg 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka article was nominated to delete in August, and Beeblebrox add tags to the page based on AFD discussion which resulted as Keep and Improve. Yet, again article was nominated to delete in Here and no one raised problem in article. Most of the participant praised the page and result was just Keep. In the talk page obi2canibe has stated he is not an expert on this subject and he has done no contribution to the article except some 'undone'. Currently there is no dispute on content. But there is a dispute on tags. Without specifying what are the disputes on the article, obi2canibe introducing tags. I repeatedly asked (talk page and edit notes) what are the disputed content from him. But he is not specifying issues. Also he has removed link in [here] and inserted orphan tag removed by automatic bot program. Currently I don't have permission to edit Sri Lanka page. Can you please look at this issue and instruct me how I needed to sort out 'dispute tags' on a page that don't have ongoing dispute ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.172.6 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking me to accept tags introduced by obi2canibe as a consensus of AFD ? --Himesh84 07:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not. Unfortunately, obi2canibe and I have both explained this, so I'm not sure what else to say. But the AfD has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the tags. The AfD merely questioned whether or not the article should be deleted. It made absolutely no comment about the quality of the page, merely that the underlying topic was important enough that it deserved a Wikipedia entry. The way to "remove the tags" is to fix the problems they identify. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I can find 'problems they identified' ? In which of obi2canibe (or anyone else's) edits in the talk page ? Can you please specify the date of the edit ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm on my way out the door. Read the 2 talk page sections I commented in. It's there, plain as day. Don't edit war over the tags; if you need further help, pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphan tag was removed by automatic Addbot program in here. To introduced the tag again he could chose ethical way or unethical way. But he has chosen the unethical way. That was deleting references and make a page as orphan. One of his reverts are in Sri Lanka page which you recently protected. --Himesh84 09:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Major BLP issue

This edit seems to be highly problematic. Please do something about this. Thank you. Forgot to put name 18:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You've already done everything that needs to be done: you reverted the content and warned the user. What else did you want done? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision Deletion. That is really a blatant violation of BLP policy. Forgot to put name 04:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to reach the level of RevDel...but I'm in a bit of a rush right now, so maybe i'm just not seeing it, so if you are worried, ask at WP:BLPN (or another admin). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hafaz Refrisa Maulana

Just to let you know he's back from his block, and he's carried on editing his Captain Tsubasa pages without a word on his talk page or the MfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 09:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Ray Comfort and sourcing direct quotes Hi. There is no policy or guideline that requires that a citation placed directly after a quotation, including in instances where the quotation is part of a larger paragraph supported by the same source. I'm I'm mistaken, can you point me to the passage where this is stated? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Well, for one, it's just normal scholarship--you can't even put a quotation into a high school level paper without a citation, and doing it at any professional level (journalism being the one exception) is just impossible. As for Wikipedia, it's the first line of the body of WP:V: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis original). So it is explicitly required by policy as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC) We're not talking about whether a quote requires an inline cite, and we know that you are aware of this, given the comment in your edit summary "quotations always need to be cited directly and immediately after quote". Again, where is the policy or guideline that states that a citation placed at the end of the passage that contains the quote is insufficient? Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC) It's right there, "Attribute all quotations...." Putting the cite at the end of the paragraph makes it very unclear whether that specific quotation is being cited. And even if the citation is not required by policy, it's certainly better to have it there, because, as I said, professional and academic scholarship always requires a citation after a quote. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC) "It's right there..." It's right where? Can you point to me where this "there" is? Nightscream (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC) The part I quoted. "Attribute all quotations." That is exactly and specifically what I am talking about. Putting a citation at the end of a paragraph does not sufficiently "attribute" the "quotation". Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC) You said, in your January 12 message, "it's the first line of the body of WP:V: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Nowhere in that quote is it stated or even implied that placing a citation at the end of a passage is "insufficient", as doing so is precisely the accepted practice on Wikipedia, and is explicitly called for by WP:PAIC, which makes no exception for passages that happen to contain direct quotes. So your statement that "it is explicitly required by policy" is false, as is your insistence that it is "normal scholarship", as this not an accepted standard anywhere in scholarship. Footnotes got at the end of the supported material. Direct quotes are not an exception to this, and no reasonable person would think that a footnote at the end of the passage would be "unclear". Redundant citations clutter up the passage and constitute citation overkill. I'm removing the redundant cite. If you disagree, we can call for 3O or a consensus discussion. Nightscream (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC) WP:PAIC says "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, including any punctuation (see exceptions below), with no intervening space." That means it should be right after the quotation, not the end of the paragraph. Is there some other part of that WP:MOS I'm not seeing? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC) It does not support your position, because the word "text" does not mean "direct quote". In the case of the passage in question, the entire passage, including the direct quote and what follows it until the end of the paragraph, is the "text" and the cited source supports all of it. Thus, "immediately following the text" means at the end of the paragraph. Your argument only makes sense if you selectively define "text" to mean "a direct quote", which is specious. But if you can explain to me how this makes sense, I'm all eyes. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC) New Earth100 AN/I Since you were involved in the last one, I figured I should let you know about this. I was going to contact you directly, since you said you would deal with the problem if it reoccurred, but when I saw you were taking a break, I took it to AN/I. Don't feel like you have to get involved if you don't want; I just wanted to make sure you were aware. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I see that the problem was resolved...sort of. It would be great if 2 weeks from now he'd come back and edit productively...but the comments since the block make that seem unlikely. As for yourself, as Bb23 advised, be sure to provide warnings for continued poor behavior as needed. Since a number of Earth100's problems don't fit neatly into a single template, Bb23's suggestion to just skip them and instead write a short note, linking the relevant diff, may be easier. But if there's even one more personal attack, please let me know right away--he doesn't get any more chances/warnings in that regard. As long as the personal attacks stop, it's okay if the rest of the problem takes a little more time, as sourcing can be learned...but abusing other editors is obviously wrong and cannot be tolerated. I'll leave him a note to that effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 173.89.153.66 …*again!* Hello again. You may recall this user (your archive 41) you recently banned/blocked from the List of Kim possible characters. He's back. AGAIN, and making the same edits as before. Could I ask of you to check into him yet again, please and thank you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZigZagStudios (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I've reblocked for 1 month. Let me know if she/he hops back to another IP address. Qwyrxian (talk) Thank you. I hope you enjoyed your break! -- ZigZagStudios (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)