User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 52

How to edit articles in wikipedia

LESSON 1:

1. DELETING REFERENCES AND WELL SOURCED CONTENT IS VANDALISM AND DISRUPTIVE EDITING.

2. POINT OF VIEW IS A SERIOUS ISSUE

3. YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA

4. INTRO SECTION MUST NOT BE TOO LONG OR TOO SHORT

5. THE OTHER PERSON MAY BLOCK ME BECAUSE, U ARE LOBBYING HIM TO BLOCK ME VIA EMAIL.

6. IF CONTENT IS A PROBLEM, WE CAN RE ARRANGE CONTENT AS PER REFERENCE. WE CANNOT DELETE WHOLE CONTENT

7. Accusing me and disobeying 3RR by you is also not needed

LESSON 2:

AFTER I GO TO WASHROOM. Murrallli (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

lesson 2:

YOU HAVE INITIALLY DISOBEYED MY 3RR, AND U R ACCUSING ME ABOUT THAT OTHER EDITOR WITH WHOM YOU ARE LOBBYING TO BLOCK, IT IS YOU WHO HAS TO BE BLOCKED FOR CONSTANT EDIT WARRING. DONT BLAME OTHER EDITORS FOR UR AGENDA DRIVEN VANDALISM, FROM PAST FEW HOURS YOU ARE ABUSING ME AND MY EDITS AND THE ARTICLE. WHAT KIND OF A PERSON U ARE?? YOU DONT KNOW HOW TO REASON WITH ME AND U R CONSTANTLY ABUSING THE ARTICLE AND FELLOW EDITORS?? Murrallli (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

lesson 3

IF YOU WANT TO ABUSE FELLOW EDITORS BY BLOCKING THEM. DEAL WITH THE EDITOR DIRECTLY. STOP SENDING EMAILS TO OTHER EDITORS AND ADMINS, AND STOP LOBBYING OTHER EDITORS TO BLOCK ME AND STOP CONSPIRING AGAINST THE FELLOW EDITOR, WITHOUT COMMUNICATING WITH ME AND LOOK FOR AMICABLE RESOLUTION WHICH CAN BE ACCEPTED BY BOTH USERS Murrallli (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't sent emails to any other editors regarding you. And I find it interesting that you have suddenly remembered your password when you told me you had forgotten it. I'm not allowed to block you directly since I am involved with you on a content matter (this is in WP:INVOLVED). Unlike you, I generally try to avoid breaking WP rules. And if my suspicions are correct, you've been breaking Wikipedia rules for years, hundreds if not thousands of times. Is that correct? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User Murali

I understand the trouble u r going through with him, and u have warned him to behave properly multiple times, even though he continues to behave violently. I too have had troubles with him, so I think its good that u just block him and his IP address as well. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nitrogen asphyxiation

You have reverted content on "Nitrogen Asphyxiation" and Capital Punishment. Editing factual text that is well sourced and documented, simply because you don't believe it's relevant, is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.196.253 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect: there are hundreds of reason to remove sourced content. In this case, I'm removing it per WP:UNDUE, because the quotation you pulled is not relevant (in my opinion) to the article. I'm going to revert your addition now. Per WP:BRD, if another editor legitimately rejects a new addition, that editor (you, in this case) should go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe other editors will agree with you; maybe you can even persuade me that the content is relevant and due. But you'll need to have that discussion first. I'll even open up a thread there you can discuss it in in just a few minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Pursuant to the concept of "Neutrality", it is required that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The article gives merely a brief introduction to nitrogen asphyxiation as capital punishment, but only identifies the pro-life argument failing to acknowledge the opposing pro-capital punishment viewpoint. The article finishes by stating that no state has adopted the procedure, yet without giving both viewpoints, the article is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.196.253 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page. This is not a discussion between you and I--it needs to be between any interested article. I will explain there why you are wrong, but I need this to be an open discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

message

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Krantmlverma's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

Please add the removed content to the article "Anitha Shaiq" you will be blocked otherwise. it is a brief information about the person and i am the original editor of this article.--johnsib (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As I explained at both the article and your talk page, information on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources. This is explained in WP:V, and it is one of the most important rules on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Cummins

Good work on the Cummins site. It needed it. I hesitate to edit things I find strange on there because of my user name.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. It's entirely possible that more of the article needs to be cut, but those were just the fastest and most obvious problems I saw. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikilink

I have no objection to the specific Wikilink at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&oldid=570906103&diff=prev ; it's just that it was added by a blocked editor, and many of his edits are absurdly wrong. I thought it better to revert all of his edits, rather than taking the time to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sounds fine then. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

please check the link i have given here.http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/rolling-in-the-hits/article1151079.ece, it states all the informations i have added to "Anitha Shaiq" is true and sourced. why you have removed contents from this article?--johnsib (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)please talk to == Jimfbleak == regarding if you have any doubts--johnsib (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the source. Now we can work out how to include some (though not all) of that information. For example, the article should not contain any details about her mother's past, as the Wikipedia article is solely about Anitha, not her mother. I will propose a set of info to add to the article on Talk:Anitha Shaiq. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. 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) 06:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoga

Sorry. I have removed my bad statement.Goodfaith17 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute--that is absolutely NOT what I did. What I did was stop you all from edit warring. My protection is NOT me saying that your version is better. And, if you had read my note on the talk page, I specifically said that everyone needs to stop using the word "vandalism". I need you right now to retract that term from this page, and never use it again in reference to edits made with good intentions (which I assume both your and the other edits to that page were made). Calling the other edits vandalism is a personal attack which is absolutely not acceptable. As soon as you retract that here, what you need to do is go back to the article talk page and start/continue discussion about what the article should look like. It may be that the consensus of other editors is against you; if it is, you'll have to either pursue dispute resolution or just accept that your version is not the preferred one. Again, as I said on the article talk page, if you or any other editor starts edit warring again after the protection expires, I will block them. Similarly, if you refuse to engage in good faith discussion based upon sources and upon Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you have cannot attempt to make the article the way you want.

I think I need to be a little more clear: I considered just blocking you for edit warring rather than protecting the article. Your version seemed to move the article away from a longer standing consensus, but I wasn't quite sure because of the complicated edit history. So, please, retract your claim of vandalism, then go engage in civil collaborative discussion on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

1. ok. I understand. I will collaborate with other users to find some solution. thanksGoodfaith17 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

here is the link that prove the biographical information and personal life is true and it is sourced. please go to the link given and you can get all the information given in the article (the information is removed from the page recently as it is not sourced)http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/article1151079.ece And please add the removed content of the article--johnsib (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

The statements of the government is sourced.Only having the stand of TNA and the state makes balance. First the pro-Sri Lankan state editors removed the separate section about war crimes,then the section about the civil war.Now they [including you] say that there is no need of reference to the stand of the SL state about the political solution.Wikipedia is NOT a TOURIST SITE for SRI LANKA (Arun1paladin (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Arun1paladin)

No, I have no opinion whatsoever on the matter. I'm acting as an administrator to enforce the consensus determined on the article talk apge, and you are edit warring against that consensus. You are welcome to pursue dispute resolution, but further reverts will be considered edit warring and will result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Qwyrxian, if you have no idea about the issue you should stay back on the issue until a clear Edit War starts and then you apply your admin powers. Just reverting the sourced detail and then claiming, "I'm acting as an administrator to enforce the consensus determined on the article talk page" will make the Wikipedia Project a joke over the time. Sri Lanka Page on Wikipedia was not expanded on consensus basis but rather adding information citing sources (some of them are either questionable or not reliable) and giving undue weight to the page. If you are so clear cut on "consensus", then a large amount of information should be removed on the page and then should added/expanded on consensus basis.HudsonBreeze (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The particular matter in question was discussed recently on the talk page and the consensus was against the edit I reverted. When acting as an admin, I am specifically not supposed to get involved in the actual content matter. If you believe changes need to be made, discuss them on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I will go through the discussed issue on the talk page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Confusion at AAP

I think that you may be mixing politics and religion in your analogy here concerning conservatism and Hinduism. Or maybe I am even more weary of it than I thought. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You are correct to be confused; I changed my analogy in the middle of writing it because was specifically trying to move to something not directly related to India. It's fixed now. Thanks for noticing! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

72.211.185.40

Is back adding stuff to BLPs without citations.

Reblocked. I only added one of those articles to my watchlist, because just glancing at a few, their awash in unsourced info and what I believe is excessive detail. But I just don't want to get involved in a ton of pages on athletes, so I kind of have to just pretend they don't exist.... Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your quick response.

Thank you for your quick response. In the process of a content dispute on The Departed a tepid discussion of sock-puppets took place on its Talk page, and one or two erroneous or falsified reports appear to have been made. How does one correct this type of situation or have it looked into. Do you have previous experience with similar history. AutoMamet (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the talk page and some related pages, and I do not believe that any reports have been filed yet. At this point, User:Gareth Griffith-Jones has only accused you of possibly being a sockpuppet on that article talk page. While it is true that accusations of sockpuppetry without proof can constitute a personal attack, a one-of comment based upon what is at least passable evidence of concern is not a personal attack. However, Gareth should not repeat that accusation unless he's willing to back it up with actual evidence, ideally in an SPI filing or ANI report. If Gareth believes he does have evidence of sockpuppetry, though, it should, of course, be investigated as fully as possible.

As for the content dispute, I see that Bbb23 has fully protected the page to stop the edit warring, and the lot of you should figure out what belongs in the article and, if necessary, use dispute resolution to help solve the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. My principal concern at this point is with the appearance of retributive edits that seem to be taking place in direct response to the Departed Page edit discussion. The page for "Breaking Bad" went through a large section delete contra user:Hearfourme, and another full section delete of the Theme section took place on the "Raging Bull" Page in retribution by 2 of the disagreeing editors. Looking at the fully referenced Theme section of "Raging Bull" which has now been fully deleted by them, is there a way to protect and restore the Theme section of "Raging Bull" from this retaliation edit originating from the content dispute which you have already looked at on the separate "The Departed" Talk page. 208.120.96.227 (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, on Raging Bull, it is arguable that you (I'm assuming you're AutoMamet logged out) should have been blocked for edit warring, given that multiple users were reverting you. I think you stopped just in time to avoid that, but it was close. Old Jacobite isn't blameless there either, and should also have stopped reverting sooner. Also, never under any circumstances call a good faith edit "vandalism"--that's considered a personal attack and can result in you being blocked. Per WP:VANDAL, Vandalism only refers to actions taken to intentionally make Wikipedia worse, like saying "Raging Bull is a bunch of Bull. Get it? LOLOLOL". Removal of content can be vandalism, but only when it is done for no reason at all. Here, as explained on the talk page, there is a specific concern that that information violates WP:OR. I'm not sure that it should have just been outright removed; perhaps some of it could first have been tagged as needing citations or page numbers, but removal isn't completely unreasonable. At this point, the easiest and best thing (since this would probably happen eventually anyway) is for you to pursue the course that Softlavender suggests: rewrite the whole section, sourcing each individual detail more precisely; I am going to make a few comments on the talk page, though, as I think they're requesting a bit much. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for your post on the talk page for the film. Both were highly useful.

Are you aware that User:OldJ has decided to ignore your kind advice and continue with his serial deletes and reverts on the Departed wikipage. Yesterday, following your advice to all the users, I fully researched and rewrote the subject edit with new footnotes including direct quotes, and posted them as they mention the Departed explicitly. They were proofed and corrected by user:SoftL in the Edit log history, and User:Hearfrom gave another post on the Talk page for full inclusion. In response User:OldJ has decided to ignore your advice and now has decided to go from his eight previous quick deletes to number nine deletion. Could you look at the Departed page. AutoMamet (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yo dude, none of that is true. Qwyrxian has given no advice on The Departed Talk page. You did not re-post your essay on Bulger and The Departed, you posted something about upcoming films on Bulger and you posted info on the featurette(s) on the DVD. I have never agreed with your oft-deleted and still-deleted essay on Bulger and The Departed. Hearfourmewesique has never commented on "full inclusion" of all the unrelated films which OldJacobite recently deleted. OldJacobite has rightfully deleted your posting about upcoming films not directly related to The Departed. The section is titled "Sequel", and is not for unrelated films. The place for mentions of films on the same or similar subjects would be a See Also section, but since the films do not exist yet (if they will at all), there are no articles on them to list in a See Also section. Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Both Softlavender and OldJacobite are correct--those movies have nothing to do with The Departed. As you've been told a few times by other editors, you seem to be confusing Bulger and the movies based on his life. You can't call a movie a sequel simply because they're on related topics; by that logic, you could call Jacob's Ladder a sequel to Full Metal Jacket, which we could in turn call a sequel to Apocalypse Now, simply because they're all about the Vietnam War. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick response. In case you are still on line, my including these supportive Sequel comments was based on the Rottenberg essay in EW cited in my footnote which calls the Departed "central" to the making of the two films mentioned. The edit history for The Departed clearly shows that User:SoftL saw my edits for this and made her own further edits.

My analogy here for the main edit is still underway and is not based on analogy to something like the Vietnam war. The analogy is to the way that the wikipage for Citizen Kane deals with Randolph Hearst having a separate biography section for its main character model. This is the analogy for the other main Departed edit dealing with Bulger as a separate biography section for its main character model being redrafted with new cites added. AutoMamet (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to prevent future heartache and wasted time: Please note that the Citizen Kane#Hearst_as_story_model is all completely taken from, and fully cited from, articles and books about the film, not about Hearst. This must likewise be the case for anything added to the The Departed article. Softlavender (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And once again, you're making stuff up. Nowhere in the EW piece is The Departed cited as "central" to the making of any film. Nor did I make any edits whatsoever to your addition to the Sequel section of the The Departed article. I saw that you had made those additions, but I knew OldJacobite would rightfully delete them, so I just left it to him or someone else to delete. I've tried to remain on everyone's good terms and be helpful and not be the "bad guy", but you do make it difficult when you repeatedly post untruths and also repeatedly post the same arguments again and again and again. At some point you just need to stop and read and really take in what everyone else is saying to you, so that you do not end up wasting everyone's time over and over. Self-justification has no place on Wikipedia; learning Wikipedia policies and content requirements does. Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For user:Qwyrxian, thank you for abiding by these posts. The insults she has made are denied by the urls I have provided. I am in agreement with user:Hearfor on the Departed Talk page that she has misunderstood the full meaning of the citations given. User:Softl has now started to deliberately jumble the chronological sequence of posts on the Talk page of the Departed to suit her own POV against wiki policy. My request is to please return the Talk page entries there into chronological sequence so that a coherent discussion cycle can continue. I request that User:Qwyrxian confirm my note that User:Softl return the Talk page sequence to its normal chronological order and that she not continue to jumble it. AutoMamet (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

AutoMamet, please do not keep digging yourself in deeper. Nothing you just said is true. I've already posted the EW link above -- why didn't you click it and re-read it? You've never given any now-deleted citations that had any useful meaning other than what has already been stated and cited in the article, that Costello is loosely based on Bulger. Nor has Hearfourmewesique stated that I have misunderstood the full meaning of any citations. Nor have I "jumble[d] the chronological sequence of posts on the Talk page of the Departed". What I have done is post a subheading in the middle of the 3,500+ word round-robin about your inappropriate and deleted essay and which should have been dropped after OldJacobite's explanation, but which you have dragged out by your inability to hear what anyone is saying to you. This is classified as disruptive editing, and if continued, can result in being blocked. Meanwhile, what I have done, since the extremely repetitive 3,500+ word discussion is now far too large to respond to easily, is I've posted a section break so that responses can be made easily. You have been engaging in at least five kinds of disruptive editing (I urge you to read that link), not to mention misrepresenting the truth on repeated occasions. I suggest you stop both of those (disruptive editing and misrepresenting the truth), in order to avoid Wikipedia sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Barun De

Barun De needs a semi to counteract the IP-hopper who we were having problems with a few days ago. I'm completely confused regarding whether or not I have exceeded 3RR because the address keeps changing. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you don't like the changes done to his site, all of which are completely genuine, and since your language exceeds the norms of decency, I suggest you close down the page. Nothing much to write home about a man now shortly deceased. That will save on space here on wikipedia. Barun De may not have been anyone to you, you may not have known him, and even if you did, you may not have known him intimately. You did not start this page, and your concerns with this page are no longer than a month or so, i.e. since his untimely demise, virally reported as they were in some of the Indian newspapers. Your claims on controlling this page are not tenable. Yes, guidelines have to be followed, but administrators need not semi-protect or fully protect the page. If they don't like the page, they can close it. Barun De would not have been unhappy if the page closed down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Barun De appears to be a notable academic. As such, Wikipedia should have an article on him. So, the page will not be deleted. Whether you or happy with the page (or if Barun De himself would have been happy) are irrelevant. As for the information, why are you removing it? How a person died is a normal piece of information to include on a biographical article. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be anything indecent about it. Could you please explain? Is this a cultural difference? Again, this is very very normal in Western countries. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian, for your detailed explanation of why you are persisting with the page and the information that you are giving in it. I appreciate your respect for Barun De, who happened to be, I repeat, my father. Yes, I know, he was known to be a notable academic. But to me he was just a father. He has just passed away. Now, please, don't change that to 'died'! No, there is no cultural difference here, but you could say, there is indeed, an emotional point. I just don't want his most recent ailment up on the wikipedia or any other internet source. I did not provide the information to the newspapers, nor am I reading them. You would be doing me a favour if you could kindly not mention his illness or that he has passed away in this article. Yes, we know he is no more, but what is the need to publish it so loudly? He told me repeatedly that his health must not be discussed on the internet, especially the facebook before he left me. You would be doing his departed soul and his son's existing one a favour if you deleted all reference to his death. I trust you would understand my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.78.22 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to consider removing his health problems, but we simply cannot remove the fact that he died; otherwise, the Wikipedia article would be implying he is still alive. Furthermore, we have a specific guideline, WP:EUPHEMISM, which says we never say "passed away", as it's not a neutral phrase (thus violating one of our core principles, WP:NPOV). That one, I'm afraid, is simply non-negotiable. I'll remove the illness information, but whether or not it is permanently removed will be up to a consensus; I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page, and possibly bring it to a relevant noticeboard if need be. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. That he has passed away is indicated from the absence of the category, 'living people' at the bottom in the category section. Mention of the birth and death years on top in the info box should suffice to say that he doesn't live any more. Do start a discussion on his illness if you feel that's necessary. That's your choice. But the person, the 'notable academic' as described in this talk page, did not want a page on him on the internet in the first place. He agreed to it because I, as his son, wanted one and he couldn't and didn't want to say no to me. But, I repeat, he disliked publicity, and what's more, did not want any of the articles on his relatives, including his father, i.e. my grandfather Basanta Kumar De, or his grandfather, i.e. my great-grandfather Brajendranath De, or his uncles, i.e. my granduncles and one grandaunt Jyotish Chandra De, Sarat Kumar Ghosh, Paresh Chandra Datta and Saroj Nalini Dutt, on the wikepedia. Whether you want to keep them according to your norms is really your choice. But the person who wrote them, i.e. myself, entirely of his own accord and for his own personal satisfaction doesn't care anymore about these pages. But Qwyrxian, thanks again for your consideration,. You may be able to appreciate my entirely personal concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If he didn't want an article on the internet and you had the chance to respect his wishes then why did you copy your creations here to another site a few days ago, as you claimed to have done on my talk page? You are asking us to respect his wishes and yours but simultaneously promoting his memory elsewhere. I realise that this is a difficult time for you and perhaps you are too close to events - it is 20 years tomorrow since my father died, so I've been there, done that. I've got no problems with omitting the cause of death for now and have said as much on the article talk page. That does not mean it will be permanently omitted because it is fairly normal practice here to mention such information, just as it is in newspaper obituaries etc. If you want to discuss this further then you really should log in and do so on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me answer your questions one at a time:

1. I have not reproduced this article anywhere else. If it has indeed been reproduced, then that has been done by someone else. I am not responsible for articles created by others and cannot have them changed or edited. 2. Going to another talk page now is fairly impossible for me since I am not all that internet friendly. That is the main reason why I didn't come to this talk page earlier. By chance I found after several clicks of the button, and thus am here. 3. I don't think I asked anybody to comment on how difficult a time this is for me. Please, if I could request you to leave that to me. All I am asking for is that my father, Barun De's page be left alone, not locked up, and his last wishes respected. He was an old fashioned person with no great fondness for the internet. He had very explicitly expressed his desire not to be discussed on the internet, especially wikipedia and facebook. You seem to be in awe of the numerous newspaper obituaries he was given and indeed of his reputation, which nobody should know better than his immediate family members. Many thanks, Sitush for your admiration for my father. If that is so, then please if you could show respect to some of his core values, which included a fondness for anonymity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC) One more point needs to be made here Sitush (talk): even though you will not reveal your identity on the wikipedia - very careful I must say - clearly you are some one who is interested in the social sciences. And also you are interested in Barun De's wikipedia page. So you could be someone from within the same social/academic circle. Your responses here on the internet are suspect. Your language needs reformulating, your comments need reviewing, and frankly, I don't understand your overriding concern with Barun De's page. Also, you have got into the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences page and made changes. Why is that? Is it because you are equally interested in that page and the institution? Finally, you could consider being much more polite. Anonymity on the wikipedia does not give you the license to being downright rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that Sitush is being rude or unfair. Sitush is, well, blunt, and I think that for some people, that comes off as rude, but it's not with an attempt to cause distress. And when Sitush is direct and blunt, it usually has a cause. The reason he's been blunt with you is that your behavior does not meet Wikipedia standards in a variety of ways. The main problem is that you came to Wikipedia, edited under both a named account and a variety of rotating IP addresses, and attempted to create a whole bunch of articles about your family members. Those articles were, as a whole, non-neutral--they were written to praise your family, not to provide a neutral account of their lives. Now, I can understand why you want to do that, and even understand that some of the mistakes you made were due to being new, but they were, in the end, mistakes. And that all would have been okay, except that in a number of cases you've persisted to attempt to force your version of what you think those articles should be. This discussion here is, as far as I can tell, the nicest and best attempt you've made to engage with another user. And let me say, I appreciate that--I'd much rather work with you than work against you.

As for Sitush being involved in all of the pages you created, it's because he's a good Wikipedia editor. What happened is that he spotted a problem article or edit you made (I don't know what the original one was), and he started looking at your other contributions, and saw a problem. And so he volunteered his own time to help improve Wikipedia to solve that problem. He's certainly not a member of some academic circle of your father's; in fact, Sitush has explicitly stated that he is from and currently lives in the UK, and several publicly identifiable UK editors have met him in person. Just because someone is trying to fix a number of pages you worked on does not suddenly make this some sort of real life attack. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I have been insensitive then I apologise for that - not my intention at all. Someone claiming to be a fanily nmember did nonetheless say that they had reproduced the original stuff on Facebook - see this conversation. I wish you well and I do understand the emotions that surround your loss. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I should feel deeply honoured to be able to work with you. The 'mistakes' I made are entirely relative. I don't think they were mistakes at all. If the articles I created were over eulogistic about my family members and non-neutral then they shouldn't exist. Why wait for an eulogistic article to be published, then taken it over, locked it up, and turn to what may be believe to be neutral? If an article is unacceptable, then close it down, after briefly informing the author - no need for any explanation - rather than turn it and twist it around and mangle it for the benefit of other people unrelated to the person on whom the article is written. My father's page is still non-neutral. Firstly, it has been presented in a way that is bound to impress the ones living in England. Barun De seems to have been taken over by the Indians living in the UK. He was an Indian, who lived in India, Calcutta to be more specific, and was deeply committed to his country. He had little fondness for those who left their motherland. Secondly, he was a committees' man. So why cut out the mention of all the committees? He felt no contempt for committees and their work. The editor who did away with those informations seems to be thoroughly revolted by officialese, as the word is used. He was the exact opposite of that. Thirdly, the section on his mother - I am not talking of his father's family - which got deleted, was dictated by him to me as I wrote it on the computer one pleasant afternoon. You managed to cut out a section that Barun De himself had dictated on his mother whose memory he treasured greatly. He told me to remember that piece of information with pride and affection. Also, the information on his paternal family is relevant with or without reference. There are scores of articles on the wikipedia on academics, businessmen and politicians in the western countries whose family connections are given with or without footnotes. Family trees are given. And these articles are not restricted to politicians only. They are on 'notable academics'. Finally, as for the facebook reference, if you go there, you would see several pages on Barun De, Basanta Kumar De, Brajendranath De, Jyotish Chandra De, etc., put up there which were taken from the wikipedia. I wonder who did that? Barun De's page is protected there as well. Why is that? You may not have heard of Jyotish Chandra De, but any doctor living in Calcutta today would know who Col. J.C. De, IMS, second Indian Principal of Calcutta Medical College [late 1930s] was. Check the CMC website. You'll get the reference. He was an ortheopedist, who was a major name in the medical profession in his time. He was considered to be particularly close to Chief Minister Bidhan Chandra Ray, whose unofficial medical advisor he was. Paresh Chandra Datta's page has been deleted. He was the founder of the B.R. Singh Memorial Hospital in Calcutta, which exists to this day. Also, Sitush, your talk page says you are from Cambridge. Good to know that. If you feel like it, you could consider telling us more about yourself, just as you asked for my identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.78.22 (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I said he may be known to the same social/academic circle since his talk page says, or said if it hasn't been deleted by now, that he is reading Bernard Cohn's book. This means he is interested in anthropology and history, since Prof. Cohn was both an historian and an athropologist. Being in Cambridge means he is known within British academic circles. Finally, if he understands the sense of loss, then why not respect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.78.22 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be going on and on about this, but if Sitush was not known to the social science circle, or if he doesn't known the circle, then why does edit only those sites that directly deal with the social sciences. I am myself from Oxford, so I should have some rudimentary knowledge of what Oxonians and Cantabrigians are forever doing in the spare time. Sitush's edits are all utterly predictable. I have heard these same criticisms earlier elsewhere and I will continue to hear them later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, because he isn't/doesn't? Sitush has edited over 14,000 distinct pages on Wikipedia. His primary focus is on article related to India, with a secondary focus on companies/locations/organizations in the UK. But he is not currently working as an academic. And his edits to articles related to your family have absolutely nothing to do with Cambridge--they're strictly related to Wikipedia policies. As you have basically admitted, you didn't understand WP policy before starting a number of pages. Those pages are now in the process of cleanup, or, when necessary, deletion. That's how Wikipedia works. I'm sorry if this somehow upsets you, but just like an academic journal has standards for what they will or won't publish, so does Wikipedia. The difference is that Wikipedia relies upon volunteers to write and edit the articles, and, hopefully in some far away future, bring them all up to a high standard of quality. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

14, 000 wikipedia pages. Splendid. So much time to spend on the internet. Brilliant. I am sorry if I do or do not 'understand' WP policy. I may not have the time to. You may ask where do I get the time to make these comments then? Well, I sit on the computer almost every day to do my own stuff, sneak once in a while in to the internet and thus these edits. Best of the luck, Qwyrxian. with your 'cleanups'. I am sure your online journal will one day compare with peer review journal. It's just that at the moment some edits aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI

You are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence.2Ftendentious_issues_relating_to_Indian_politics. Sitush (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of new religious movements

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of new religious movements. 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. This message was delivered manually as RFC bot is currently offline. Thank you. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Block question

Are users allowed to remove Edit-Block notices from their own talk pages? Since you performed the block I wanted to ask you (see User talk:John Dowsett)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it--no, an editor may not remove an active block notice. You can always revert an editor who does that. If the problem persists, an admin can remove the blocked user's talkpage access. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

/sigh... he did it again--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Re:Enkyo

Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for your good faith on ANI. I'm beginning to think good-faith is something of a rare natural resource on ANI. I'm also beginning to think that being in an ongoing dispute with Enkyo means that if I have any run-ins with other editors I'm not going to be able to get any help with it because either the first user will show up and gang up on me, or some ANI-junkies looking for drahms will show up and deliberately ask them to gang up. I therefore wanna get the Enkyo issue dealt with as soon as possible, but is another ArbCom case really the way to go? It doesn't look like he (or anyone else) is going to post on the ANI thread again, and ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Transparency?

I have no idea what you meant with your edit comment of "you could not be more transparent" (and, for that matter, your reversion of my edit).

I removed the link to a dead image because it was a link to a dead image. The image was dead because I deleted it, and therefore I cleaned up after myself by removing the links to it. I deleted it because it had been uploaded by a sock of a blocked user, and this is standard protocol for stuff that has been done by socks of blocked users. You're free to upload a fresh copy of the image.

What motive are you attributing to me? DS (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Ah, okay. Thanks. DS (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree, reversions of edits by the 'administrators' are not just arbitrary, but demonstrate in ample measure their absolutely lack of knownlegde of academic standards. I don't know how they've become even online editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.181.199 (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

To Dragonfly, yes, totally sorry for any confusion--the problem was certainly with the edits before you--the sockmaster had made another new account and reverted back to the sock-version. I should have explained that better in my edit summary (and gotten the right revert in the first place). To Padmalakrishmx (I don't recall how to spell your name), find a new hobby. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Hamham31's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo's still at it...

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Kim! Just to let you know that Enkyo did exactly what Qwyrxian and I said he would, and waited for the ANI thread to get archived before going right back to doing what brought him there in the first place. So I've started a new thread. Feel free to comment if it suits.

Kind regards,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Petermusngi

I've seen the edits made on the article DWAI. It was originally redirect to Driving under the influence. See the history, they've made another hoax station again, but I reverted it at the same time replacing the original edit made by User:Chuuumus. I suspected that the IP addresses are all sockpuppet of User:Petermusngi. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the redirect for a month. Thanks for finding that. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, can you please watch this User talk:222.127.190.61 as well. He tries to vandalised the transmitting power of DWRR-FM in this article. User:IzzyIzumi133 did the revert by now. I've suspected that this is another IP address of User:Petermusngi as well. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 3 days. Unfortunately, there's no easy way to watch a specific user's contributions; bookmarking their contribution list works, but I don't have time to do that for dozens of users, especially when that one's on a rapidly changing IP. It's much easier for those editors who watch the relevant articles to see the edits pop up.

What we may need to do is simply semi-protect a large number of articles, as it may be the only way to get this user to stop. The hope would be that if all of their targets disappear, they'll get bored of waiting and go away. We'll have to see if this continues long enough to justify that type of move. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I tought. Anyway I really appreciate your action. And I'll keep you updated if the blocked user is using another IP address, just to vandalized Wikipedia articles. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hi there, may I know when will my account be autoconfirmed? Thank you for the response. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 01:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be withing a few hours; it's 10 edits and 4 days, and you're just under 4 days right now, assuming my math is correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well you're right about your math theory. I made 40 good edits (I guess). But anyway thanks for the info again. I really appreciate to help and barging in not just only fighting vandalism, but to join other WikiProjects here which suites and gives me an interest to stay here on this site. Proud to be a Filipino-English Wikipedian!. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 02:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Daisuke110 needs help

Hi again Qwyrxian. One of our fellow contributor here on WIkipedia, and also my co-worker in my company named User:Daisuke110 needs some help. His account was created last October 27, 2011. He just approched me personally and needed some help because his account is inaccessible up to now. He attempts to open his account again but no luck. The main problem now is because he forgot his password, and the worst, he doesn't seem to have his own e-mail address to recover his lost password. Is there anything to address this problem? Thanks. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 03:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, there is actually nothing that can be done--the passwords are stored in such a way that they are actually inaccessible to everyone--even those who write the software. The best thing that he can do is to create a new account, and then just put a message on his new account's user page that says, "My previous username was User:Daisuke110; I forgot my password for that account and can no longer access it." Then, as long as he never again uses the old account, there's no sockpuppetry or deception. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad comments

hey, You blocked me for one day for making wrong comments on Yoga talk page and I am sorry for that. But I think no one else other than me and you has the right to discuss about my block. The User:Yoonadue has placed realy disturbing comments about me on Talk:Hatha yoga, depicting me as an anti-hindu. this exprience was realy disturbing one for me. Please take notice if you agree with me. thanksGoodfaith17 (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've removed Yoonadue's description of you as "blocked", since that's not appropriate to mention on the article talk. Bishonen | talk 08:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

I actually don't think there's much wrong with the use of blocked there, since it points out that Yoonadue can't expect a response on the article talk page. But I defer to Bishonen's judgment. As for the rest, Goodfaith, I don't see where on Talk:Hatha yoga Yoonadue calls or implies that you are anti-Hindu. I believe some statements were made to that effect before, but that was before my warnings. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian. When it's only a 24-hour block, Y can expect an answer pretty soon (like now; have you considered replying there, Goodfaith17?), and mentioning it is more like (not necessarily intentionally, but in practice) poisoning the well, see my edit summary. Bishonen | talk 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

That makes sense; I had forgotten the block was only for 24 hours. Good call. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Qwyrxian, my name is Tomica. Since you are an administrator I would like if you could help me with something. Can you please transfer User:Tomica/Good Girl Gone Bad to the original article, Good Girl Gone Bad. I would be grateful. Cheers!— Tomíca^(T2ME) 08:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain why? I don't see any discussion on the article's talk page to indicate what the changes are?

Ugh, wait a sec, I just looked more carefully at the history, and see that you just replaced it with a cut and paste. That's a major problem, because now the edit history is messed up--you're missing the required attribution from the version you and Status worked on. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: My behaviour

Heyy, Hijiri88's phone here. I'm sorry about ... all that nonsense. I've been under a lot of stress lately. Wikipedia used to be the place I'd relax and get away from whatever troubles I'm having at work or in my social life, but lately ... I don't know, it just feels like everyone is ganging up on me, and I just have no idea what happened most of the time. It's like all these users (Enkyo2, Toddy1 ...) seem to have it in for me, and I have no idea why ...

I've sent you an email about my problems (some of them are of a personal nature). You don't have to respond, but please read it ... I just don't know what I have to do to make these people not hate me ...

182.249.0.245 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

House Music

Thank you very much indeed for your message regarding the un-sourced and unexplained revisions to the house music/Chicago house pages. I am very concerned about it as I think the origins sections of the articles are excellent and I was very surprised by the changes. I will contact you if there are further problems as you suggest - and thanks again.

(Etheldavis (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Note

You may recall looking at some of the 'Sharma' articles created by the same person. Two of them were subsequently deleted after being taken to AfD. I was also looking at Bhanu Prakash Sharma when I suddenly had to go away. I think it is dubious material for a WP article, as I see no notability or notable achievements. Jurist sounds good but doesn't imply notability of any sort, and this guy was just doing his day job, as all provincial judges do in India. He was never a Supreme Court judge. Educator sounds good too, but then all tutors and teachers are educators. As for the professor title, he acquired this for a stint at the academy in Mussoorie after retiring from his day job. Interested people often apply for such posts at the academy and are given the title at the academy e.g. http://www.indiastudychannel.com/jobs/269461-Professor-Economics-job-vacancy-at-LBSNAA-Mussoorie-through-UPSC.aspx He was never a real academic professor and upon relinquishing the post the title, too, disappears, whereas real professors retain the title for life. The name-dropping in these articles, suggesting notability is inherited, seems to be a common feature in this user's articles, which are for the most part inter-related. What do you think? I think you are in a better position to decide whether this one should be taken to AfD as well. Zananiri (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I sent the article to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

National Telecommunications Commission (Philippines)

Hi Qwyrxian, can you please watch the article I linked on the header. Some of the contributors leaving a message of concern on its talk page. I'm aware for that since Wikipedia is not a social talk or message of concern on that company. I remove their message and instead I left a message and a link on where they will left their message. Thank you. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That was fine, especially since some of what you removed contained personal contact information. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

How do you pronounce your name? Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, back when I invented it, a good 25-ish years ago, I would have said it was pronounced either "Quirksian" or "Queeeerksiuhn", but I'm not too picky :). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH

I perfectly agree. In fact it says: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." This is what I consider in my edits. For Instance: Petrarch is one of the most important fathers of the Italian Culture (so the term "Italian" is relevant to the subject's notability); Tino Caspanello is Italian because Italy is the country of which he is a citizen, national or permanent resident. This is what the WP:OPENPARAGRAPH says: In most modern-day cases this (location, nationality, or ethnicity) will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident. In all my edits I consider the Opening paragraph rules. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Odlly, I would argue for Petrarch that the use of "Italian" is wrong, because Petrarch was born Arezzo and, at the time, Arezzo was an independent city-state; he would have been considered a "national" of Arezzo, not of Italy. But I'm no scholar of Middle Ages Europe, so I don't think I'll be intervening there. But I do think that in general it is wrong of us to impute people nationalities when the nation-state in question did not exist at the time of their life. Other than that, though, I believe we are in agreement. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I write here what I wrote in the Petrarch's talk. Petrarch is considered one the fathers of the Italian culture and one of the three most prominent figures of the Italian language (along with Dante Alighieri and Boccaccio): the term “Italian” is relevant to the subject's notability. Arezzo was a city-state, a “Commune”, and not a country and in similar way the term “nationality” didn’t exist at the time. It was used only since the birth of the so-called “Nation-states” such as France, Italy, Germany … I disagree with these changes. In Petrarch's article I added also a reference that states he was Italian: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/454103/Petrarch. I'm surprised you removed the term Italian from Petrarch. It does not make sense for a poet that is considered the father of the Italian language. The user Justlettersandnumbers changed Italian in Aretine one month ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petrarch&diff=567872509&oldid=567788472 without asking the consensus. The article has always introduced Petrarch as Italian until that edit. I'm really surprised. --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank goodness someone finally fixed it. Britannica follows different conventions than we do; our rule says that we don't put ethnicity in the lead in most cases. In cases where we do, it's always going to accompany nationality. And the closest thing we have to nationality for the ancients is often their city-state. Now, perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps there's some special consensus for people predating states. There must be a place we can ask, though I can't think of where right now; I'll mull it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed. I'm speachless. It's not a matter of nationality. Petrarch wrote in Italian. He contributed to the creation of an Italian culture. The term italian points out the reason for what he is famous. We are talking about something that is so clear: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Petrarch, http://petrarch.petersadlon.com/canzoniere.html, https://sites.google.com/site/memeypauli/petrarch, http://www.westernciv.com/greatminds/petrarch/petrarchbio.shtml ... --Walter J. Rotelmayer (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFP/C

Hi Qwyrxian, sorry for my comment on the linked special page . I'm just confused on your name, sorry again for my mistake. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 06:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:222.127.188.51

Hi Qwyrxian, after my friend here in Wikipedia sent a notice to an IP address regards to User:Petermusngi, I've decided to help him. I have to inform you that he is at it again by using another IP address I linked on the header. I will do the revert and warn him. I've noticed it when I'm checking My Only Radio article (see history). He tries to vandalized Wikipedia again. Thank you. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing, thanks for the address User:IzzyIzumi133. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 01:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

RE User:Daisuke110

Hi Qwyrxian, I confirmed this account as my replacement of the account I linked at the title. Can I moved its contents from my new account? This time I provide my own e-mail address just in case I forgot my password again. Thanks for your quick reply and Cheers. TonyDavis810 (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you mean your edit history, no I don't think so. We do move over the edit history when you do a name change, but there's no way for you to do that without knowing your original password. Best is just to put a note on User:TonyDavis810 stating that your previous account was User:Daisuke110. Is that alright, and what you meant? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User reported

heyyy. you blocked me for one day for placing the wrong comment including the word Hindufied in reaction of the comment of User:Yoonadue on talk page and I was sorry for that, but now User:Yoonadue has placed same comment relating to Buddhism i.e.,'Buddhification. go to thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=572487368 and give me justice.Goodfaith17 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with justice for you--I declined the AIV report and blocked the user for a day for making personal attacks that I'd specfically told all of you not to do. I just want to be clear that you do not take this as any sort of support whatsoever for your edits. I have no opinion or knowledge about the theological underpinnings of Yoga, though I do know that at least some of the rest of your work has been significantly undersourced. On Hinduism vs. Buddhism vs. whatever for Yoga, you could be 100% right, or 100% wrong (though I bet it's somewhere in the middle); I'm just trying to get everyone to start behaving per our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement

heyyy. I was recently reviewing new smart phone brands and I come across LG G2, and its article looked more like an advertisement to me. please review itGoodfaith17 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the sources seem to be independent. In all honesty, I don't quite understand how our pages about products work, especially tech products, because I see a lot of stuff that I would call more advert than encyclopedia, but it gets defended well. You could certainly raise a discussion on the article's talk page. For me, I just choose to generally avoid articles on consumer electronics and similar things. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right. I think writing encyclopedia about a tech product doesnot completes until its features are not shown in an advertisement mannar. several days ago, I came across a pakistani smart phone brand article called Qmobile and was a complete advertisement. I left it just like that because I had not much time. today I have again viewed page and I am happy that the article has been deleted. I will try to create a neutral article soon.Goodfaith17 (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)