User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Investigation of HistorNE

A sockpuppet investigation is opened regarding user:HistorNE (2 ips and 2 user accounts).I find it relevant to notify you, since you have already suspected HistorNE of being a sock of Shaushka himself back in June [1].GreyShark (dibra) 15:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Dear Qwyrxian, I would like to respectfully ask You to comment at Talk:Rahul Gandhi#Caste?. You are an experienced one, and an un-involved one as well. The post of an experienced Wikipedian like You can help Us undisputedly conclude the discussion. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, Thank You for Your comments. ← Abstruce 10:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Curiosity: in the UK, "banter" tends to imply good-humoured back-and-forth chat between parties. Does it have a different meaning elsewhere? The BJP has never struck me as being anything less than angry in its comments about a wide range of things, even more so than the self-righteous posturing that is standard for cross-party political discourse. What is generally regarded as the definitive US dictionary - is it Webster's? - Sitush (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Google (worldwide ?) says,

noun: the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.

verb: talk or exchange remarks in a good-humored teasing way. ← Abstruce 19:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, We have a Wikipedia:Redirect page "Banter" ← Abstruce 19:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Gambaccini was not a Rhodes Scholar

His name does not appear on the list of Rhodes Scholars, maintained at Rhodes House, Oxford: http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/about/rhodes-scholars/rhodes-scholars-complete-list

He is an American, and there are exactly 32 American Rhodes Scholarships awarded each year. His name is not contained in any of the lists of American Rhodes Scholars in the appendix of this book, either: http://books.google.com/books?id=Y78i5nkBWxgC&dq=cowboys+into+gentlemen&source=gbs_navlinks_s

(see pp. 381-382 for the lists where his age and graduation year imply he should be found, but a text search further reveals that no one with his surname is found in any of the lists at all.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.119.108 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the details; that's very convincing. I wonder what FT meant when they said that he got a Rhodes scholarship...is there some other scholarship with a similar name? Or did they just do a bad job of fact-checking? In any event, removal seems to be correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no other Oxford scholarship (I assume his having attended and graduated from Oxford is actually true; I haven't checked that) with a similar name. When this kind of education/credential error crops up, the source almost always turns out to be the subject himself. cf. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/health/research/21cancer.html 131.215.119.228 (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanharib Malki

Dear administrator, please help me to move the article named Senharib Malki to its original name of "Sanharib Malki". He is a Syrian footballer who is known internationally as Sanharib Malki. Appreciated.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

All done. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: removal of discussion on garlic as lead treatment

The WP:MEDRS page you cited doesn't preclude the use of single studies, it just strongly prefers secondary sources. Rather than potentially cause harm to the world and especially those without access to standard chelation therapies (such as the poor) by removing the information posted, why not spend some time to work together and take what I posted and improve upon it such that you feel it's up to Wikipedia's standards. Predecess (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

THe whole point of WP:MEDRS is just what you've said: to avoid causing harm. It is known that people (wrongly, foolishly, of course) turn to Wikipedia for medical "advise". No one should be taking advice based on the results of a study conducted on slightly over 100 people. The only time I can imagine a single study being allowed as an exception would be if it were a major, cross-population, study, probably a longitudinal one. The only way I could imagine if considering inclusion of that source would be if you could show that numerous other scientists/medical practitioners are citing that study (and in a positive manner). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deobandi Article

Dear Qwyrxian --

I noticed you just reverted my changes to the "Notable Institutions" in the Deobandi Article. I see that you cited the Due and Undue Weight guidelines. I understand that the references I added should also be in the target pages, but what other way is there to justify which institution should be listed in this article and which one is not influential enough? I feel that only madrasas that are particularly influential should be listed in this article. As I try to edit that section, I see numerous madaris that have been added to the list, yet are very small in size or influence. Some are not even Deobandi. How else can we determine this except through a short description?

Regardless, if it's OK with you, I'd at least like to organize that sub-section based on country. It will look a little neater.

Thanks

--Sarashee1 (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that if you add a paragraph of info on two of them, while providing no info on the others, then you're giving those particular madrasas undue importance. As for the criteria that should be used in including items on the list, we should probably hash out something on the article's talk page. I have guesses, but other editors should join the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I should have clarified. I plan to include a paragraph on each entry listed. I was just working on one section at a time. I did all the British madaris. Then I'll do the South Africans, and so on. Is that OK? --Sarashee1 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for User talk:120.28.128.51

Hi it's Coyote wadi for User talk:120.28.128.51 if distrupt editing DWRR-FM will be blocked from editing at 2 weeks. Coyote wadi (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited since September. I'm not sure what you're asking. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Demigodz

Hi there,

I think this group easily meets WP:MUSIC and I think the article should be unsalted and recreated. Someone has already created DemiGodZ as a redirect to Apathy (rapper), but I suppose this was done just to get around the salting.

Here are a few sources demonstrating their notability as a group: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

Thanks. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't even get to the salted page because the redirect automatically takes over, even if I use the original capitalization. I don't remember if it was deleted via AfD, or just through speedies; the next correct step depends on what happened before. Do you remember? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your own deletion was a speedy. You can get to the salted page by clicking the Demigodz redlink on Apathy's article. Thanks. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. My deletion was a speedy deletion based on WP:CSD#G4--that's a deletion because the article was previously deleted at a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demigodz (2nd nomination). As such, you have to be able to overcome the concerns raised there. I don't know much about hip-hop, but at a quick glance, those "references" you link to all appear to be blogs or something similar, and thus don't meet WP:RS. What you should probably do is draft the article in your userspace, then take the matter to WP:DRV under the grounds of "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." If they think it's sufficiently changed to overcome the G4, then they'll probably let you move it into mainspace, though they may require it face another AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The group seems to easily meet criterion #6 at WP:MUSIC - "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". I notice part of the rationale for the original deletion in 2008 was that none of the members were independently notable, but that was incorrect, as the articles for Apathy, 7L & Esoteric, DJ Cheapshot and Styles of Beyond all pre-date that deletion. Celph Titled has also had an article for the past few years. Is that not fairly open and shut? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On that matter, you're asking the wrong person, because I don't believe that criteria applies to much pop music, and especially not hip-hop, based on the way that membership in "groups" spring up and down at a moment's notice, and two people may come together as a "group" for a single song and then the "group" immediately ceases to exist. I'm not willing to override the AfD. But DRV can do it for you, and I won't take any action against it. You still need to find reliable sources, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Rahul Pandita

Hi Dear Qwyrxian, I respectfully ask You to please manage few minutes for Rahul Pandita. I think, at-least now, "Template:Non-free" can be removed. I AM somewhat unsure, so, I think I should refrain from doing it Myself. Also, I request, that if You may look forward to remove any sentence within quotes (" "), then please consider rephrasing it, rather than removing it. I guess You Yourself would prefer to do correct things that way as well. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 15:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you want me to edit the article. If I did, I'd remove 75% of it. An article about a person, even an author, should not be a collection of quotes from reviews. Are you sure you want me to do it? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ROFL, Thank You Dear for Your wonderful reply. Then, please give Me only 2 (maximum 3) days, so that I can follow and act as per Your words of advice. I will do homework. I have already started Googling. Sincerely, ← Abstruce 07:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this editor?

No idea why he reverted me here.[10] A brief look at his other edits suggests he may have a pov problem. I see he reverted you also. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, most of his edits seem to be good--reverting vandalism or poor additions to articles it looks like he cares about. On Niyogi where he reverted me, he did stop after my second revert. On Cinema of Andhra Pradesh...my guess is a combination of POV and English ability (I see English problems in his editing history, including where I was reverting him on Niyogi)...he probably saw an IP remove something and then assumed the removal was vandalism...I don't see anything to terribly bad in the editing history, though, and definitely some good, so probably not too much of a cause for alarm. I have a slight worry of a deeper problem, but if this is a sleeper, it's hiding very low for right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sleepers do behave that way at times of course - we have get socks of the same puppetmaster arguing with each other, as I'm sure you know. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussions with disruptive dynamic IP

Should I bother to start a discussion concerning Sheohar (Lok Sabha constituency)? It is periodically hit by the efforts of a dynamic anon and they'should obviously be aware of my comments in edit summaries regarding WP:V etc because they're undoing my reverts. If it was practically anything but an article related to India then I'd start a discussion by default but experience suggests that doing so for dynamics in this area makes little difference to outcomes. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've protected for a week, reverted the unsourced material, and opened up a conversation on the article talk page. Reverting unsourced info I believe does not make me WP:INVOLVED, since WP:V is very clear and unambiguous, and, of course WP:BLP arguably applies as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hoping that you would protect and thus force the issue to the talk page. We'll see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi! Thanks a lot for reviewing my edits. :) However, I reverted your changes since my updates were correct.

Mohan Lal Grero has now crossed over to the government and is the deputy minister of education. Refer to the official website http://www.moe.gov.lk/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158&Itemid=263&lang=en

About Professor Jayatilleke, I personally know him and he is the head of my university. His name is misspelled and I have made a change request and updated his biography page too. Please let me know if you need any other sources. :)

Regards, Navaka.

Navakawiki (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine; I only reverted because Jayatilleke was unsourced. That page (as with many alumni pages) gets people adding themselves or colleagues or friends that they "know" attended the school, but for whom there is no source for either alumni status or notability. So, my standard approach (and that of many others) is to automatically revert every redlink of a person to a list of this type per WP:NLIST. But now that it's linked I see that the professor's page contains a verified source for his alumni status, so everything's good. Thanks for following up on that, and so politely, too! Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Conghua

Perhaps the page can be "pending changes" and semi-protected simultaneously, although semi-prot. is one week. Or it can be "Pending changes" instead, as it has been edited infrequently. --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the problem is recent (last week or so), my goal with the semiprotection is to get the IP editor to start using the talk page instead of edit warring. If it were a user with an account, I (or the involved editors) could have started with a discussion on the user's talk page, but since the account is dynamic, there's no way to tell the person, "Hey, you need to talk about this". For me, PC is primarily for cases with long term vandalism but also a mix of good IP edits, and I mostly restrict its use to BLPs or other sensitive topics. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reporting possible sock suspect of Padmalakshmisx

Hi again, I don't have much experience in WP:SPI so I thought I'd directly report this to you in case I'm wrong. The main master is I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive (you've dealt with this before) and I'm reporting User:Newlife2. After you had reverted the sock edits in Swarnakamalam, this user made similar such edits again over there, same goes with the edits at Genome Valley.

A possible WP:DUCK? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Blocked and tagged. I think all of the edits have already been reverted. Thanks for letting me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Drug Recognition Expert

This is important topic --- use in last 10 years has skyrocketed. I don't see it elsewhere on W'pedia. I'm slowly filling this in as time allows. I'll get to the peer-reviewed science in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanstone456 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC) −

And once there is some independent sources, the notability template can be removed. Adding the template simply asks the question; I didn't nominate for deletion, which is what I would do if I were certain it were non-notable. That being said, once you're done adding whatever you've found, we'll have to consider whether it's best as a stand-alone article or as part of some larger article. That will be determined primarily based on how much independent coverage it's gotten. I recommend focussing on the independent info now, rather than trying to provide more details from within the certifying organizations themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, there isn't much in the way of independent sources for these police tests. They were invented by police. The only people eligible to do them are police. They are promoted by police. The people giving the other side are defense attorneys --- and they're no more dispassionate than the police. There is some peer-reviewed science. Like I said, I'll get to that.

Know too that the stories police tell courts and the public often differ substantially from what they write in their official documents--standards and manuals. So an article quoting manuals is useful in giving readers the background official facts.

Tell me where you think the article should go, and I'll do it there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanstone456 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 

I CAN'T Make a Standard Block Appeal w/o Talkpage Access

Jeez, you are SO QUICK with your Twinkle revert and IP block, you don't even think about what you're doing, you don't even consider that there's a person on the receiving end of your actions. I can't make a standard block appeal because my talkpage is blocked to me (by Spartaz, without warning or talkpage comment, who aleged I used it as a "pulpit." It is unfair to have me email BASC because my original blockers sits on BASC and refuses to recuse.

C . C
o . o
l . s
t . m
o . i
n . c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.3.87 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I knew exactly what I was doing and I am aware of your situation. But the problem is is that Arbcom has declined to unblock you. Admins are not allowed to override their decision. The only person who could possibly do so is Jimmy Wales, and as far as I know, he's also declined to take up your case (given that you've posted to his talk page, and emailed him, and announced that he hasn't followed up on your case). I'll keep reverting you anywhere I see you pop up--obviously, I'm not watching everywhere, but I'm trying to help get it through your head that, unfortunately, there is no way forward for you via admin talk pages.

Let me try to put this another way: if Magog (or anyone else unblocked you), Magog himself would have to be blocked, and he'd face a desysop request. We cannot override an Arbcom decision.

I have no idea if the Arbcom decision was unfair. I have no idea if the original block is unfair. But we have processes, and you have exactly two processes open to you: BASC, and appeal to the benevolent and mostly recused dictator. That's it. Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No, read what I wrote to Magog. Arbcom declining to lift my block does NOT mean everyone else must decline it, and they themselves say so. You have no policy for any of this, if you did, you would link it. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You want a link? WP:BLOCK. When you are blocked, you may not edit. Period. Not for any reason, except to make an unblock request on your talk page. And if you're not allowed to make one there, then you have to use WP:UTRS or WP:BASC. You cannot edit as an IP--even to request an unblock. Period. You may not edit. That is the policy. It is as bloody simple as that. I'm sorry you don't like the rules, and feel that the avenues open to you will impinge on your privacy. But those are the rules. This is no different than any other private site. You can't hack your way into, say, the New York Times and try to insist that they either let you read their site without contracting with them or, as you're effectively insisting here, force them to allow you to publish on their site. Wikipedia has rules. It's not a public space where you have some sort of right to be here. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not again compare block evasion on Wikipedia to the unlawful activity of hacking the New York Times website to publish there. That is a bad and wrong comparison. The policy you cite here has nothing to do with what you said before, the stuff about "admins are forbidding from unblocking you." I take it as an admission you can't back that up. If you want to switch gears to WP:BLOCK, that policy expressly makes it discretionary to revert a block evader's edits. "Discretionary" means it is up to you, you can't say you "had to" or "have to" do it. If you want to revert my civil and constructive edits, such as that to Magog's talkpage, then WP:BLOCK says you may, but don't pretend it says you must.

A clearly abusive block such as mine by Timotheus (no warning, no explanation, no diffs, untrue) means that block evasion is justified. There is no room at all for such a block to be non-abusive. The "secret evidence" argument is discredited, and Jimbo knows my former account is in good standing as well that true to my word I never edited with it since I switched. I edited Wikipedia for longer and probably authored more articles than you ever did. I will keep responsibly block evading to seek fair treatment as long as it takes. CC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.69.100 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That last point is where you're making your error. You have no right to fair treatment here. This is a private website, and access to it, at least in terms of editing, is 100% at the discretion of the Wikimedia Foundation. They have delegated the bulk of that discretion to the community, who has, in turn, invested much, though not all, of the ability to block users to administrators and Arbcom. You attempting to edit here is a violation of our rules. You have no recourse here other than the two official set of rules. I'm sorry that you don't like that, and accept that something unfair may have been done in your case, but those are the rules. You have to either decide to submit to the "unfair" and "unreasonable" rules, or you have to find another hobby. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sangram Singh

Dear Qwyrxian,

I see you have problems with the section on controversies. Can you please tell me which of them can be retained? Is not a person's own facebook page and website making claims not good enough? What about the official site of the even which does not support the person's claim? He is a public personality after all.

I think we should have some details on the controversy section.

- ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmax (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the official site says that Sangram SIngh is wrong? Or are you saying that his Facebook page says, "This is controversial, but..."? I doubt that's the case. If so, we cannot take his facebook page, compare it to official sites, and then label it a controversy. Instead, what we need is an independent, third party source that discusses the claims and compares them. Do you know of such a source? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also, in order to use the Facebook page, we'll need to be certain it really is controlled by him, not by a fan; for that we usually need some sort of independent source as well (like where he talked about the site in an interview). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4946996/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm#trivia - mentions about his 3 inspirations for his acting career and whose influence among them is more on him. It also mentions his parents and sisters name. The http://www.indicine.com/name/himansh-kohli specifically mentions his family people again. both these links have are definitely reliable.If you feel the parents thing is not reliable right now. then atleast keep the inspiration part as that's directly mentioned in imdb.Malkinrowdy (talk) 07:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

IMDB can be edited directly by users and can never be used to verify anything other than very basic, obvious information, like the cast of an already released movie (i.e., something that could be verified by watching the credits of a movie or television show). Indicine doesn't even come close to being a reliable source; it looks like an aggregator of other web content; it has no named authors or editorial team. So, no, that info cannot be included until you find a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

But name of parents, sister, school, college, inspiration for influence in acting - are very basic info. They may even appear in future interviews of the actor. Presently even his facebook profile shows these things.At present we may not have much references other than this. One more is there in indiaforum and his own facebook profile(personal account ) and other being his official fan page handled by him in twitter and facebook.Malkinrowdy (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If we can verify with certainty that his facebook page is under his own control, then it can be used as a reliable source, but only for information about him--not for information about other people. And no, family, school, and influences are not basic information that IMDB can verify. As I said, IMDB can basically only be used for things that could be verified by someone watching the movie or tv show. It is essentially an open wiki, in that it can be edited by anyone; this means it is not a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay then please see the link his father has posted - https://www.facebook.com/AMITYUniversitykiFamousHastiya/posts/1430141567202164:0 shows he is from Amity university and even his years in college has been mentioned.His official fan page handled by him and his personal account again handled by him also refer to the fact that he is inspired by Rajesh Khanna heavily as he regards him as his idol - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php? fbid=424735937568843&set=a.257258800983225.60140.244555798920192&type=1&theater . Now his personal Id is https://www.facebook.com/himansh.kohli. He mentions his father, mother and sisters names as well as his school name, college name.Malkinrowdy (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The first link you provided is some sort of Amity University fan page, with no official recognition, and thus not reliable. The picture you provide does not state he regarded him as an idol--it says, "I still remember when we met he told my mom today I'm a superstar tomorrow he ll be jus do a favour to this child isse acting Karne bhej dena my blessings with him . Miss u kaka may ur soul r.i.p " That does not say that he looked up to or was inspired by Khanna. As for the rest of the facebook page, what evidence do we have that it's his official page? The reason I ask is that it has happened before that what looks like an official page is actually run by a fan. However, the way that one is written, it's probably okay to use. So if you can find a specific link to the page that lists his college, we can use that do verify the school he attended. We should probably not use it to verify his family info, as we usually cannot use self-published sources for info on other people. Plus, there's no real need for that info, anyway--while a lot of WP pages have them, the only people we should usually name are the parents (and, personally, I don't even know if that's always necessary, though I wouldn't object if it could be verified). We should not name his other relatives unless they are also notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Am only saying that since parents and immediate sibling information is not trivial - atleast without naming any source we can provide for time being say for next 4-5 months as Vipin Kohli's original account - https://www.facebook.com/Vipin9980/about- mentions his son as Himansh Kohli and their respective personal facebook account does give away their family photos with name of his mother, father, sister, school.(as probably more newspaper artciles or other articles would appear in web once his film nears its release)Himansh is fan of Rajesh Khanna - that he has mentioned in many of the comments made by him in various places in facebook, forums, youtube interviews. So currently if only external links are given to his official fanpage and his personal account that would suffice.Malkinrowdy (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning User Jfgoofy

Earlier this summer, you remember how you and Mufka blocked one Jfgoofy for edit-warring in order to keep his original research edits in various articles, and then warned him to not continue such behavior? He's still making the same original research edits while edit-warring to keep them in pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months, and indicated that this is the last chance--if it starts up again next year, let me know and the next block will be indefinite. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Understood.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply

When I revert someone else's edits, it is considered removing content and I am told to take it to the talk. When someone else reverts my edits, it is considered legitimate grounds and I am also told to take it to the talk. Is there any scenario in which somebody else has to defend their shit? Why is my content always the one that's removed in the meantime? I'm just trying to create a good article so I have a better chance of getting my editing rights back, but as always I'm getting the usual Admin berate. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It always depends on context. I don't know about the other times this has happened to, so I can't comment on them, but on Joel Osteen, you added a very large amount of information, some of which was verified by questionable sources, introduced a very large amount of positive information, removed a bunch of negative information, and had an unusually large number of direct quotes. These are all things which were concerning to other editors. As such, following WP:BRD, you were reverted, and so it's up to you to discuss. The circumstances are different if, say, there was already discussion on talk, or if the addition was impeccably sourced and neutral, or other cases. In any event, Grayfell has provided some more info on the article's talk page, so why don't you follow up there? If there are other cases where you think you're being treated unfairly, feel free to let me know and I will look into them; but even if you think it's unfair, the safest thing is always to stop reverting, discuss, and call in an admin or noticeboard or dispute resolution or someting. I think this is especially true since you've had problems with this matter in the past, and it seems like maybe you're just not quite understanding how WP works. Note that, as Grayfell said, a good portion of what you changed on Joel Osteen was for the positive, so it seems like you can be a good contributor. It can be tough to really get integrated with Wikipedia's culture, so please ask if you want. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Demographia

Saw your concerns on Jl2047a talk page. It's actually quite a used source on the site. We also have an article, List of urban areas by population, that uses data from Demographia. The author of the site is also published. While this may personal preference, the data from this site is much more reliable than sources such as the UN's World Urbanization Prospects. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds good. Late last night I saw it being mass added, and I glanced at the site, and the layout look worrisome but not obviously spam, so I wanted to investigate further. Since the person was adding it so fast, though, I didn't want ti to go much farther. I'll let the user know. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, two other admins were also concerned, and one indeffed for spamming. I'll have to take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And after looking at it more, the nature and tone of the introduction makes me believe that this is not a reliable source. I'll explain on Jl2047a's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

One of my methods for source reliability is source comparison. In my view, considered reliable sources are not the same as actual reliable sources. So I searched for data that's out there. Here's a table showing population data. Some of the definitions are different (metropolitan area =/= urban area) but they are not vastly different from one another:

City	Official	Demographia	CityPopulation	Forstall	UN
Jakarta	23,308,500 (2000)	26,746,000 (2013)	26,400,000 (2013)	18,900,000 (2003)	9,769,000 (2011)
Osaka	19,342,000 (2010)	17,175,000 (2013)	16,800,000 (2013)	17,375,000 (2003)	11,494,000 (2013)
Seoul	25,721,000 (2012)	22,868,000 (2013)	25,800,000 (2013)	20,550,000 (2003)	9,736,000 (2011)

The Forstall publication is published but requires private access from what I've searched. I've included an older version of it. The Demographia data has some consistency when comparing just the official sources. Comparing it to other sources out there, there's further consistency. If you take a look at the UN data, it's not even remotely close. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinion required

I did ask at WT:INB but I've had no input. I realise that you are short on time but if/when you get a moment then please could you look at recent goings-on at India Against Corruption and, in particular, at Talk:India Against Corruption#Neutrality. I could ask at WP:3O or WP:DRN but you are already aware of some of the background here and might be able to progress things. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've jumped in a bit now; I'm trying to stay a little closer to an admin there, but who knows exactly where the WP:INVOLVED boundary lies. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No probs. I've just amended your restoration - if you compare the present version with what you restored then you'll see broken GBooks links in the refs for your version, unsourced and incomplete statements etc. ACFI had already been adjusting things using the primary sources and some odd deletions went on - no idea why.

You are right about the BRD thing and that is partly why I reverted everything I'd done that day. I was convinced that I could persuade them that the new version was better + that policy was on my side but given the reaction & the significance of WP:EW even for one revert, I should probably have just left it alone and done some work in a sandbox. It was not my finest hour here. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We all have bad days. And it's tough here--oncoming elections make it more important to stay vigilant, but since it's India, we don't have the tons of eyes like we would on a US/UK/Australian election. And thanks for fixing it to the right version. I expect at least a TP response from AFCI, so we'll see where it goes. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on an RfC about Living members of deposed royal families and the titles attributed to them on WP

Hello - I have opened an RfC about suggested guidelines in the Manual of Style for articles about living members of families whose ancestors were deposed as monarchs of various countries and the titles and "styles" attributed to these living people, at the moment often in a misleading and inaccurate way in my opinion. Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies "Use of royal "Titles and styles" and honorific prefixes in articles and templates referring to pretenders to abolished royal titles and their families"[11]Regards,Smeat75 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI - Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Could you take a look? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And am I at three strikes already? (not that I intend the third one, if I'm at two). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

See also this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You're at 3 reverts. Each of these edits: [12] [13] [14] directly undoes the work of another editor. So you do need to stop reverting now. The warning to you should not have used the term "vandalism", but it's only slightly different than the meaningless warning you gave to MarchOctober. Both of you should be talking on the talk page, not giving each other warnings. Or reverting on the article. As for the content dispute, it's way too late and I'm too busy to look into it today; maybe tomorrow, but no promises. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan

Requesting intervention about User: Joshua Jonathan's edits, Please see this first the information was removed because he said that words used to describe are peacock words click here, I have restored the content providing sources which use the exact words as on the article and these words have been on the article for couple of years ? He undoes my edits and gives me a warning template when I have provided sources, so I in turn gave him a warning template and reverted them back. Marchoctober (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see this he says he adds notes but deletes information, also the citation needed tag was probably added by him as they are november tag,s later simply deletes information.

Here he moves criticism section above awards and honors section so it is more visible, motive seems - show the personality in low light (my point of view)

Marchoctober (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

His template to you was not so much a warning as just letting you know he thought the edit was not helpful. However, I agree that it looks like a warning template; personally, I never use that template because of possible confusion. However, you should not have left a warning for him, especially not one that uses the term "vandalism", because that word has a very specific and very negative meaning on Wikipedia. See WP:VANDAL. In fact, calling another editor's good faith contributions "vandalism" can be considered a person attack. So just be careful not to do that in the future.

As for the content dispute, as I just told JJ above, it's too late and I'm too busy to look into it today; maybe in the next day or two. But both of you should stop reverting and simply discuss the matter on the article talk page for now. There's no rush--anything that is done today can be undone tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I will follow as you have said in future, but I would like to explain myself why I had given him level 2 template, I gave him the level 2 template as I saw good faith missing, removing content with a motive which does not seem positive(explained motive above), hence I gave him level 2 intensional disruption warning template, the edits do not seem by mistake by any means especially providing so many details like WP:Peacock, if there are peacock terms only the terms should be deleted but the whole sentence was deleted and many more edits which I provided above, all his edits reflected like they were intentional disruption of content hence I gave him this template 2 directly instead of level one, it is also mentioned on that page that we may give directly level 2 template if above condition is met. All this is my point of view if you think otherwise I will definitely abide to your directions, I just am trying to make sure you understood my point of view - which may explain my actions better to you.Marchoctober (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I understand, and giving a "warning" was fine (though, in a case this complicated, I think both of you should have hand written messages rather than using templates). But it's important that if you do warn someone, you use the right terminology. If you're right (and I'm not saying you are--I haven't looked at the underlying content dispute), then JJ was at fault for blanking text without a sufficient reason, or maybe for violating WP:NPOV. Vandalism only means a deliberate attempt to make Wikipedia worse, like writing, "He's a big stupid idiot" in an article, or just "LOLOLOLOL". Even if JJ was wrong here, he was clearly not trying to do that, so it's important that you don't say what he did was vandalism. Thanks for understanding. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Rajasthan festivals

Also copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Abby Martin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abby Martin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abby Martin (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SarahStierch (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar Page

See you are threatening me not to involve in the development of the page . In wiki every body has the freedom to express their thoughts , if i dont have any freedom of expression i will quit from the wiki itself . does the lines included under the "Present" title in vanniyar page was added after any discussion in the vanniyar talk page ? i didnt see any ? is that from the reliable source ? when ever i add any content in the page , you asked me to discuss in the page? but if others could do without any discussion in the page then there is no equality . Wiki documents should grow by active involvement of all . When the page is about particular group of people in India , you should allow fellow indians to write about the article . But you are not doing so . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's correct several misunderstandings you have. First, no one has "freedom to express their thoughts" on Wikipedia. See WP:FREESPEECH--Wikipedia is a privately run website, with the right to control it's content however it Wikimedia Foundation wants. And, which leads to the second point, what the WMF does is say that the community gets to set rules, and you're not following them. I would be more than happy to allow a hundred Indians to edit that page--but every single one of them needs to follow Wikipedia's policies. It doesn't matter who you are, you must include information only based upon reliable sources, and you should remove reliably sourced information only for a clear, policy based reason. You have repeatedly removed information from that article because you disagree with it, even though it's verified by a reliable source.

Was that info you don't like added by talk page discussion? Possibly not, but it is sourced. That means that there's a default assumption that it's possibly reliable. Furthermore, the book you removed is published by Sage Publications, which is an academic publisher (a very good sign) by a senior lecturer at a respected UK institution (another good sign) in his area of concentration. Now, it's still possible that the book is unreliable (if the opinions he's expressing are widely outside of the mainstream academic opinion, for example). But since you seem unable to do this yourself, I'll do it for you: I'll add a tag to the source, and I'll start a discussion section on the article's talk page; you'll need to join it and explain why you find the source to be unreliable.

But you absolutely must not add people to that list unless you have references (or they person has a WP page with references) that verify 1) that the person is important in some way and 2) that they person is a member of the Vanniyar group. If the people are still alive, the reference must include a direct statement by the person that they are in the group. If you do not have verification of these things, the person cannot be added--doing otherwise is a serious violation of the biographies of living person's policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

Had sent explaining that since he has already discussed everthing related to his school,college, parents, sister, inspiration and Rajesh Khanna in his facebook id and his fan page - how things are clear. Now since you feel its unacceptable - i suggest lets remove the wiki article all together.It does not make sense to provide half baked information. We dont have much references. better that the page is deleted. Malkinrowdy (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)talk politely with me or any person contributing to wiki.I did explain you last time, but u did not reply back.Nothing was un-sourced, but since you feel it does not meet wiki standards, instead of blocking me, remove that wiki page itself.Malkinrowdy (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw your earlier replies, but you didn't ever point to the exact right part of his facebook page. And, as I've said before, we cannot use imdb or fan pages or anything else that does not meet our reliable sources guidelines. One of the pages you provided didn't even said what you claimed it did. So, I'm not sure what to tell you--if you don't have access to reliable sources, than the info can't go in. And there is no chance we'd delete it for the reasons you say. There is enough evidence right now that the person is notable by Wikipedia standards, and we have reliably sourced info, so the article stays. There's no rule that says that just because we don't have every possible piece of info about somebody that we would then delete their page. In fact, for the vast majority of people, we have only information about what makes them notable, and not personal info about their family and other personal details. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

He says in one of his postings that as a 3 year old when he accompanied his mom to meet Rajesh Khanna, then Khanna told his mother that - put him into acting field.He quotes with spell errors - ""I still remember when we met he told my mom today I'm a superstar tomorrow he ll be jus do a favour to this child isse acting Karne bhej dena my blessings with him " Thats clearly mentioned in his status update. His school, parents and sister names are directly available in his facebook photo uploads. He even wished his parents 25th anniversary and photos have been uploaded. Just check out. Also had given external links in wiki artcile - which was his official fan page and personal account.You removed all of them. Plus one artcile i saw in forum after browsing in net - http www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=3240150 Malkinrowdy (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he met him at three, and that Khanna said good things about him, does not make Khanna his inspiration. As for his family, you still haven't actually provided me with those links! You keep saying you have, but you haven't. As for the EL, the fan page can't be added, but his facebook should be; sorry i removed that too; I'll re-add it now. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You can provide the same reference http://www.boxofficeindia.co.in/fab-five/ for following that he was from delhi and Am sure you can also summarize to show how he got yaariyan adn what he has to say on his director Divya Khosla. Even the workshop thing you had removed (this is covered in this interview and accepted by other person). They had attended a workshop in the period July 2012-Oct 2012 and shoot began on Oct 31st and ended in April 2013.Malkinrowdy (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Another interview i read but unable to find a proper link. Just saw his instagram id - http://instagram.com/p/glH8B4zeKb/Malkinrowdy (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You fought the good fight

You never should have yielded to the masses on the Martin Bashir article. We both know he was right and everything ewe csn do to defeat the Republithugs must be done, thank you.208.73.129.106 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Poe's Law: I really don't know if you're trolling or if you're serious. If trolling, you sure should do a better job of being funnier. If you're serious, then you already know I disagree with you, so not a very fruitful conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Contents of the deleted "March, 2013 European snowstorms" article

Hello! I know I should probably asked for the userification of that page before it got deleted, but now as we have an extreme weather article about the whole of 2013, I would like to access the content and citations I wrote for my article to improve the yearly one. Could you please put the deleted content on a user page of mine?

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March,_2013_European_snowstorms

Thank you! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing; I've undeleted it and moved it to User:Rev-san/March 2013 European snowfalls. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Here's another joker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond before; by the time I saw this someone had already started an SPI, so I figured I'd let that take care of the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter account

If anyone comes here after being contacted by the Twitter account using my Wikipedia name, please note that that is not me--it's an impersonating account operated, I assume, by an ex-Wikipedian with a grudge. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great

Last year I requested moving Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo to Gwanggaeto the Great (/Archive 40#Gwanggaeto the Great). And today I found its talk page was not moved along with it and still at Talk:Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo (I should have noticed this when the page move was done but somehow I missed it). Would you please move the talk page as well? I think it is WP:G6 eligible and tagging Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great with {{db-move|Talk:Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo|reason}} will fix the problem but I thought I'd ask you first. And please tag the talk page with {{Vital article|level=4|topic=People}} after the move. --Kusunose 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

All done--sorry about that. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Chandigarh

Hi! Please check this source (you will need to download), it says Chandigarh's population is 960,787. I guess someone deliberately inserted those factual errors. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay--thanks for finding that source. Could you update the Demographics section and fix the links there, too? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My thank you

Disturbing and I don't believe it. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TESO may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''TESO''' was a [[Hacker (computer security)|hacker group]], which originated in [[Austria]. It was active from 1998 to 2004, and during its peak around 2000, it was responsible for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)