User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Off and On break....

Well, we're nearing the time of both Western and Japanese holidays, so my access will be more sporadic than usual. Sometimes I'll be around with plenty of time, sometimes I'll be gone completely for a few days, and sometimes I'll be at the whim of whatever web access I can work together from wherever I am. Right now I'm not exactly certain what will happen; if I get more clarification, I'll update if possible. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion

The conclusion was on another Korean language article around this or last month. Zit ok to post that? Komitsuki (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as you can reference the source--it's okay if it's in Korean. Make sure your phrasing doesn't claim more than the study does (i.e., if the studies suggests it may be helpful, make sure you don't say that it is helpful). But foreign language sources are fine. If anyone challenges it, they could ask for a translation, but that almost never occurs. Also, as a side note, it helps when you post on a user's talk page if you mention the article in question (here, Korean cuisine). This is because many users like myself watch and edit hundreds to thousands of articles, so it can be helpful to know which particular one you are referring to. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding dates

Your edit here did not actually add dates. If you want to add dates, use ~~~~ or ~~~~~ (date only) rather than ~~~. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh...thanks. If you haven't already fixed it, I'll do that today. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Logged out edits

Per WP:ILLEGIT, we may not use sock accounts to discuss policy changes. Please sign in with your regular account.

How could I have made that kinder?

But someone like myself showing a high degree of policy and "lingo" competence probably isn't socking.

It's really the opposite - when an account with few edits makes a nuanced argument then it is reasonable to believe that they have another account with more edits, as was the case in this instance. I wasn't assuming bad faith, just asking you to use your regular account. Will Beback talk 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that since socking is inherently inappropriate, calling someone else a sock was an automatic assumption of bad faith. But I do understand your point; maybe it's just since it was the first time someone's used said term for me that I overreacted. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. How about Per WP:ILLEGIT, we may not use alternate accounts to discuss policy changes. Please sign in with your regular account. Would that be better? Will Beback talk 14:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A small change, but a nicer one. I think either is fine, but the use of "alternate" instead of account seems good. I saw one on a talk page somewhere that I liked...I can't remember what it said. One alternative phrasing that comes to my mind is "Please note that all editors discussing policy changes should comment only from a single account, per WP:ILLEGIT. In case any editors have forgotten to log in, please do so." Part of what may help, too, is to not specifically put it after the IP comment, but make it a general comment. That should still catch the eye of anybody like myself who was mistakenly logged out, but also doesn't specifically call out anyone. In any event, I definitely think I overreacted, so my apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I'm glad to have the feedback. Will Beback talk 07:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fräulein

Hi. Sorry to bother you on your talk page, but that IP really starts to annoy me. After he/she failed to add his opinion into the article (due to lack of evidence), he started reverting to a version of early November. I reverted that, back to the new version we agreed upon. Now he is changing the wordings step by step to make them better match his point of view - which makes me want to revert again. And again he is changing the quotations of the references - that is unacceptable. It is frustrating to see him hinder every progress that is made. At what point is it possible to block an IP from editing in WP? In this situation I really don't know wether it's worth the effort to keep working on the article. --Kobraton (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no point at which we can block the IP strictly for being an IP. However, even people editing from IP addresses (especially those who edit from a stable address, as this person seems to be) must follow all Wikipedia policies. Everyone, either with a named or IP account, must adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:Edit warring, and WP:OR (the policies that spring most to mind to me, regarding this issue). While I know xe will erase it, I am issuing a final warning to the IP, as the reference to Nazi Germany is flat out inappropriate. I haven't looked at the article changes yet, but will do so briefly before I have to run out the door. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And, seeing the changes the IP made, I have requested indefinite full protection. We need to work this out on the talk page, not keep edit warring on the article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, your request was granted. So let's try and find a solution for the article. Just out of curiosity, why did you chose to request full protection, wouldn't a semi-protection have been sufficient in this case? --Kobraton (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am more than willing to collaborate on this article and look for some references, but it seems that some users will only accept edits/and references from the perspective that Fraulein is "discriminatory" and never used. I don't understand why user:Kobraton would leave a message on your talk page requesting that I be blocked. Just because I am an IP, I have every right to edit this page and contribute to this project, just as much as he/she does. Also, just so you know, I was not making a comparision to Nazi Germany. I added the tag (which you tried to remove) to state that the article only describes the usage in Germany. Austria isalso a German speaking country. Northern Italy and Switzerland have large German speaking populations. The article should not be restricted to the usage inside Germany (Germany is not the center of the German speaking world) By the way, I think the protection is a great idea. It will allow us to focus on getting the article right and stop the edit waring. 24.128.247.159 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

@Kobraton: Semi-protection would have been inappropriate and wouldn't have been granted--that would have allowed you and I to edit, but not 24....Semi-protection is usually only done to protect an article from vandalism by more than one anon IP (either a single editor changing addresses, or multiple editors on different addresses). While I believe that, in general, 24's edits are wrong (because they violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR), they aren't vandalism. Really, what we have here is a disagreement about how the article should be, with close to edit warring, and that's exactly what full protection stops. @24: One of 2 things is the case: either one of us is misreading the entire discussion so far, or you are lying. As far as I know, no one has ever rejected any source that you have recommended, because, as far as I know, you have never recommended a source. So it is flat out wrong to say we only want sources supporting a particular point of view. But, in any event, lets take this to the article talk page instead of my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Egg

The cited article presents a study dealing only in differentiating egg types based on protein and fat. It is necessary state this fact and explicitly point out that other nutrients were not included in the study, since people not reading the article may be inclined to assume that other nutritional factors were also studied but simply not mentioned in the wikipedia sentence. Jeanpetr (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that your most recent edit is great. I had thought that your implied purpose in writing the (previous)additional sentences was to say that the method used (shell strength and white height) was fundamentally bad and thus the study's conclusions weren't worthwhile; even if that wasn't your intention, it was how the sentences read, thus adding an unacceptable POV to the article. However, your new version is a much more clear and neutral statement about what exactly the study measured, and so seems like a very good clarification to me. Apologies for not being able to suggest a clear alternative myself, since I haven't read the article in question. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dog Meat

I disagree that it was "amplifying POV" to add the word barbaric. The article is very unbalanced to say nothing more about the controversy besides that some people find it "offensive". - 76.115.44.78 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any citations to back up the claim that it is considered barbaric and/or highly offensive? Even saying that some people think it offensive really should have a cite, but at least it's likely enough that it can stay in without one; but to take the position that some find it barbaric really does require a citation. Furthermore, even if you had one, I'd argue the article still shouldn't use that term, unless a very large number of people (a majority, perhaps) would be willing to use such strong words (and that, I imagine, is both false and unverifiable). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? How much in that article needs citations? Or across wikipedia as a whole, but I digress. If you are reasonable enough to say that no citation is needed to say it is offensive then you are reasonable enough to see that people find it barbaric. I read your page and so obviously dog meat is a hot button for you probably because you live in asia and need everyone to know how worldly you are, but I shouldn't psycho-analyze. The article is BIASED towards your point of view (and your edits are telling). I noted you removed other items that don't jive with your oh so worldly sensibilities. And BTW, a quick search found many cit-able sources referring to eating dog as barbaric. If you are really an non-POV wiki-warrior you will incorporate them into the article. I'm just a random consumer trying to enhance the article. 76.115.44.78 (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

First, please comment on edits, not the editor. Perhaps you need to take a look at WP:NPOV also, which talks about what we do to make articles neutral. You are very correct that a lot of WP needs more and better sources; that there are problems doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for excellence in every place we can. If you believe that other edits I made to the article are biased, you are welcome to raise those concerns on the articles talk page. Again, be sure to comment on the edits themselves, not on what you think my actual real-world point of view is. Finally, if a quick search found such sources, please suggest them on the article's talk page--as I said before, more sources are always welcome. Per standard editing practice, though, the burden of finding and adding sources always lies on the person who wants to add the information--yourself, in this case. For further discussion about this point, lets move to the article's talk page, so that other interested editors can also join the conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

S.E. Cupp

Before yesterday, I hadn't heard of S.E. Cupp or the ensuing edit war. I thought you graciously handled the olive branch to X883 (talk).

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. While I certainly get caught up in edit wars myself from time to time, I do my best to at least attempt to diffuse tensions whenever possible. This was a case where it seemed to me like one user simply didn't understand the way we work--not through any fault of xyr own, but just because we have a very specific way of doing things at times that takes time to get used to. I hope that we can keep a steady keel there going forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrapping up the Senkaku Island stuff

It's been a while since you first started the RfC. My impression is that it didn't resolve anything and failed to engage discussion on a few key issues (other than common/dual names). Since I am losing active interest in Wikipedia, I no longer have the drive to continue giving active support to cumbersome disputes like this (supposedly, previous editors who took part on similar debates had similarly lost their patience). How do you want to wrap this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the name, I intend to go to a US university library some time next week, and I was going to check a variety of current, high quality encyclopedias, almanacs, and other sources. I was then going to report those results to the talk page. Assuming that search is still inconclusive, I would argue that there is no consensus to change the name, and it should stay as is. This is an issue I expect Wikipedia to revisit again next year, and a few years after that, and so on. It may very well be that at some point in the future the correct choice is to change the name to a composite name, Pinnacle, or maybe even to Diaoyu, because it may well be that encyclopedic quality sources are trending towards the switch. But Wikipedia needs to follow that trend, not lead it, or, for that matter, be in the middle of it.

As for the other issues, I have not followed them quite so closely, especially regarding the newspaper article and other points on Senkaku Islands dispute. My personal recommendation would be to try dropping back to semi- or no protection, and just seeing what happens. The very fact that the issue isn't currently in the news means that it's more likely that editing will be more calm and productive. Should another edit war re-arise, I'd say that would be a clear indication that it needs re-protecting.

This is all just my opinion, of course. I mean, well, the first part about "no consensus for a move" comes much closer to just an analysis of the comments made so far, but the rest is open to the discussion of others.

I hope that this issue, itself, hasn't put you off WP. The truth is that some issues, especially those that reflect real world disputes, are and will always be difficult and time consuming to edit. That's simply the nature of an open, consensus based project. And our topic isn't nearly as contentious as something like Historicity of Jesus or British Isles or Macedonia. Perhaps you may find your interest growing again if you spend some time away from the project.

In any event, maybe you want to try making some "summarizing" remarks on Talk:Senkaku Islands that at establish your position, maybe even point out where you think we went wrong, if you think we did. The only other real option would be to enter mediation, but if you're growing uninterested in the project, then I don't think that will work. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the debates, but I do find it a waste of time to have large blocks of my arguments ignored (and my impression is that I wasn't writing garbage at all). In a way WP works much more like politics than academia where a sizable party of interested individuals can effectively derail any type of discussion with whatever stupid excuses. I am willing to give mediation a try, but it will no doubt be a waste of time if it ultimately requires some sort of "consensus". Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can see that you're still discussing this. It would be good if we could move forward. For the record, Bob, Wikipedia is built on consensus. There is no dispute resolution method that imposes an editing solution. That's the way it is. John Smith's (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, then I find it somewhat interesting that the original name change that occurred 4 years ago remained despite an obvious lack of consensus. By the way, I thought you dislike "wiki-stalking". Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO, one key concept in Qwyrxian's diff above deserves emphasis:

"... it may well be that encyclopedic quality sources are trending ... Wikipedia needs to follow that trend, not lead it ...."

(Note that the initially posted text is emphasized by a hyperlink, which helps to evaluate the words in context).

IMO, the wiki-term "consensus" is imprecise as it is used in the responsive comments of both Bobthefish2 and John Smith's. What does it mean? There is a difference between the consensus of editors who participate in a talk thread and the consensus of reliable sources which are surveyed at a given point in time. I have the impression that Qwyrxian is fundamentally interested in the consensus of published sources rather than in a mere straw poll of participants in our project. --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I just left the info I was able to gather from a library search of atlases today. As to what Tenmei said; yes, consensus has a slippery meaning on Wikipedia. In fact, it's very intentionally not defined explicitly, because doing so would deny the flexibility that's needed on the project. As for the distinction between "consensus among editors" and "consensus among sources", while there appears to be a difference, I would argue there isn't really one. In the case of article names, we are required by policy/guidelines to try to make our article name match the name used in English sources. No local consensus can override that. If it was not clear what the sources were saying, then what we're looking for is a consensus of local editors (informed by RfCs, mediation if necessary, etc.) as to how to interpret those sources. The info I just got from atlases was pretty unambiguous, although I admit that the info we've gotten from news and Scholar searches has been less clear (although, I think clear enough). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus" probably comes in only when policies are not involved. In heavily disputed cases, whether or not there is a "consensus" is highly subjective. Some'd argue majority rule and others would argue near-unanimity.Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

'Jesus in Islam' title move

Dear Qwyrxian,

Happy New year and Christmas, Sorry to bother you on your page. It is now a month and I don't have a single reply on my questionnaire. Isn't it surprising? You all don't want me to harm more as somebody replied earlier to my talk page. I know that must be you?

But I want answer from Q at least. Could you answer my questionnaire to judge myself that where the difference in analysis is and where I stand, to carry on further if at all.--Md iet (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

May I expect reply please?--Md iet (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was delayed, but about 2 days ago I left you a reply on your talk page at the end of the section that contains the questionnaire. This is the diff of that response. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind response. You are very right but I am still hard to get convince on logic of applicability of most common English name norm everywhere and not at all linking it and bothering about other aspects of article concerned whatsoever its importance. At present readers who can see its importance is not in position to get its claim. Anyway I have to wait and watch for right time as some of you suggested. Thanks again,--Md iet (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Irvington High School

I see that you did not find the information found on the page helpful regarding benchmarks. Students must complete a special benchmark project in each year. This sentence although grammatically correct makes me cringe every time i read it and is very poorly phrased, it reflects badly upon our schools reputation. As a current student of the school I am terribly offended by someone randomly going through and seemingly making quest not sound like a big deal it has even made its way to local news papers. It makes me wonder what makes you qualified to edit an article that you do not have the knowledge about maybe if you can show me where you get your information from. 20kshares (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I admit that that particular sentence is not phrase as well as it could be; I was concerned first and foremost with pulling out all of the promotional commentary, which sometimes leaves bare info. The other problem, as you correctly point out, is that I don't have info to work from. See, by Wikipedia's rules, any information which is in any article must be verified, usually by reliable sources. Technically speaking, I could remove that entire section from the article, because it contains no sources. However, I assumed that at least some of the pages editors (not the slew of vandals cropping up in the past few hours) are editing in good faith, so I assumed that the basic factual information is at least somewhat accurate. If I had more actual information, I would be happy to continue working on the article to make it better written, more clear, and more informational. For exampe, you mentioned that it has "made its way to local newspapers." Do you know which articles? Are archive copies of those articles on line, or do you have access to them that you could provide copies and/or quotations? An alternative source would be if the school has an official webpage or handout that describes the Benchmarks--that would be considered reliable as well. Ideally, we would want to go through the article and provide sources for everything, so if you have any such sources, please bring them up on the article's talk page. The one thing that we can't do, however, is to make the article non-neutral. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, Wikipedia requires all articles be neutral, which you can read at WP:NPOV. So that means we can't, for example, say that the Benchmarks are something like "a key guiding force in developing high quality students that are engaged in the world." That type of writing simply isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia.

So, in summary--let's keep working on this, together. It sounds like you have the knowledge of the school we need, while I have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines we need.

Okay, I just saw your most recent edits. Some of them are good, some are not. For instance, your addition of the sentence, "Given the strong tradition that the Irvington band program has, recent years have been a slight dismantlement" is not allowed, because it's not neutral. You can't make personal judgments about where the "brightest students" sit at lunch. Oh, never mind. I see you just added back in the claim that it's a university, which it obviously isn't, and you added the racism back in. Well, congrats, you trolled me and got me to waste a lot of time for no reason. Look forward to your block. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the article has been a hotbed of vandalism tonight. Does it need to be semi-protected? I was about ready to protect it to figure out where the last good version is, but I see that you reverted back to it a little while ago. Thank you for staying on top of things here! —C.Fred (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a request up for over 2 hours, waiting on admin action. I just asked a random admin now that I thought was currently online (User:Metropolitan90), but I may have been mistaken about that. If you know of any other admins currently available, feel free to contact them. I'm almost tempted to make an ANI thread, but it's still just vandalism--worst case, it gets another several dozen vandalism edits that need to be reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Thank you sincerely for updating me on this, I will be sure to not repeat the linking of years as I did in the Montpellier article.--74.131.142.157 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever edited Montpellier. I think maybe you're thinking of Temple University. In any event, I'm glad I could help--if you ever have any questions about Wikipedia, you're certainly welcome to ask here. There's only like a million and a half different guidelines and policies, and while I myself am still in the process of learning many of them, I'm happy to help where I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

This edit here is consistent with proposed changes suggested by John Smith's in October 2010. Perhaps you will find time to review what I have done -- see also Talk:Senkaku Islands#Dual-name usage in text, captions and table.

Please compare tables at

Also, please take note of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Qwyrxian's comment --Tenmei (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep this discussion on the article's talk page so that everyone can participate and the discussion doesn't become too diffuse. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

~~Yes, of course.~~ No. Your sentence is a conventional truism,; however, it is quite inapposite in the context our words create here. --Tenmei (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what? What I should have said is, is that it was perfectly acceptable and useful for you to bring the initial message to me, in essence notifying me (as a previous discussant) of the new edits you made. Now that I'm aware, I think it best if I respond there (as I have); otherwise, if reply to discuss the edits here, then someone like Bobthefish2 has to follow both the discussion on the article's talk page as well as the one here. By centralizing discussions about Senkaku Islands at Talk: Senkaku Islands we are more inclusive and, hopefully, coherent. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Inclusive, yes. Coherent, no.

The serial interspersed diffs in just one section have created an impossible-to-unravel Gordian knot.

For now, I will address one process-related issue. You will recall explaining:

"Finally, could you please stop making graphs that you believe represent our dispute or conversation or argument? You need to understand that they are only helpful for you or someone else with experience in symbolic argument, which is not the majority of WP users (including myself)."

Even if you don't understand, and even if you are unfamiliar with visual reasoning -- even if you do not understand the American idiomatic phrase apples and oranges -- graphics demonstrate a thoughtful attempt to engage core issues.

The fact is that I didn't create the "feasible region" graphic. I found it in the course of research about how to parse our problem set. Do you also reject the phrases candidate solution and feasible region?

Also, consider this: You are not the only one who reads your talk page. If not this, what is a talk page for? --Tenmei (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is primarily for people who need to talk to me about something. So, like I said, your initial notification of me about the new changes was very useful, and I thank you for it. It's also a place for people to ask me questions, to complain that I've broken the rules (although I try not to do that), etc. And that's all good. But I think that when we're talking about specific changes to an article or two, it's far more useful to discuss them on the article talk page itself. Now, this is not a hard and fast rule, and there's certainly overlap. For instance, I could have brought up the graph on your talk page, because that's not so much my concern about Senkaku Islands as it is my concern about the way you communicate on talk pages. But, all I meant was, that if you wanted to further continue talking about whether or not the change you made to SI was correct, then the place to do that is Talk:Senkaku Islands, so that we everyone can discuss it together. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gäp

Could you restore the deleted article? During the discussion it was totally reimproved, however nobode cancelled their Delete vote. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't, as I'm not an admin. The person you want to contact is the admin who deleted the article, User:RL0919. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The WIN awards

There are not really known but I think they need to get more recognition .

Women's Image Network (WIN) produces The WIN Awards to shape positive public opinion about the value of women and girls by celebrating outstanding film and television that fosters powerful and dimensional female media images.

http://www.thewinawards.com/history.html

there are not more pages about them cause they are not really known

Also I have found some people who has the nomination for that included on their wikipedia, so why not Selena? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Carniv%C3%A0le — Preceding unsigned comment added by WinterWonderland22 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they really should be better known; I am absolutely in favor of everything they appear to stand for. In fact, if you take a look at User:Qwyrxian/Women's Image Network Awards, I'm working on a new Wikipedia page to describe the awards. The problem is, Wikipedia is not the place to "become known." In order to have its own page, a subject is required to already be known; or, in Wikipedia's terminology, we have to demonstrate that the subject is notable. The usual way to show that is to show that the subject has been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources.

Now, having said that, the award doesn't technically have to be notable in order to be on Gomez's page--that's actually an editorial decision. For me, the problem is that I feel we need some indication that the award matters before adding it to her page (I tend to be on the stricter side for including info). However, I am reconsidering that decision...

Really, the best thing would be if you had any reliable sources (note that the organization's own page doesn't count, because it's not independent) that we could use to verify the award show, then we could give the awards their own wikipage. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Enrique Iglesias

Lol, it's okay. I've made such mistakes myself too :D Novice7 | Talk 06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 01:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning

I have added a section in the discussion about the removal of the quote, since I argue it should be acceptable. Toby Douglass (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hello again my friend. Long time since the great dog meat battle of 2010.

I've been watching you quietly -- some might say stalking. You have future administrator written all over you. But for now, how about Ambassador? Catchy, huh? I'm talking about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, specifically the role of Online Ambassador. If you are interested, contact Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk)

All the best to you, and keep up the excellent work! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliments. I have been/am short on time today, but I took a quick glance at the program, and it looks like the sort of thing I'm definitely interested. In a few years, I'll actually be back to university teaching (hopefully), and am considering making Wikipedia a part of my curriculum as well. I'll look at the info in more detail in the next few days and likely sign up. Thanks for the invite! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance in Adding New Page

Hello there,

I've been a Wiki-Observer for a long time now and have finally started an ID so I can edit, I have been reading your edits which I think are fair and objective so I'd like to ask your help....

I am involved in the renewables (hence the name) industry and would like your assistance in adding a page regarding a new technology which gassifies a variety of Liquids.

It has no name yet.... could I name it after the company who developed it, similar to the Kværner-process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Kv.C3.A6rner-process

Thanks, Renewables1 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as what you name it, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia at all--that's something you/the company would decide. However, as far as making a page is concerned, we do have rules for what subjects can have pages. In this case, the most important one to consider is Notability. This requirement says that only notable subjects may have their own page. Notability can be established in a variety of ways, but, in general, it means that the topic has been discussed in several reliable sources which are independent of the subject itself. The fact that this process is not even named yet makes me guess that this is not the case. That is, in order to have its own page, this process must have been discussed in industry magazines, scientific journals, reliable newspapers, etc. If it has, then we can create the page, and you'll have to use the name that those reliable sources use. If it it has not yet been covered in reliable sources, then it can't have its own page.

So, if you can let me know whether or not you have those sources, then we can figure out where to go from here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I misspoke, right now I think we just need an entry in another page, another paragraph similar to the Kværner-process paragraph... we would again name it after the company who founded this new process and wanted to check with you first. Based on your response we can call with after the company. I'll collect my resources as and show you when I am done. Actually the 2nd week of February I am travelling to Italy with an Industry expert to confirm this new process Renewables1 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Even to just appear on a page, you're going to need at least one reliable source. If this process has not been confirmed and covered in reliable sources yet, it is not eligible to be on Wikipedia, not even as part of another page. My guess, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Basically, the idea is that Wikipedia exists, as an encyclopedia, to collect information about things that other reliable sources have already determined to be "important." Now, this is not saying that it needs to be an earth-shattering new idea, but that it does have to have already appeared in print somewhere. That is, Wikipedia is not a place to release new information to the world; in our terminology, we say that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. For that, you want, as I mentioned before, a trade magazine, a scientific journal, etc. Is this a process that has already been covered in real world sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, point taken and understood. Do you consider a confirmation of this new technology on this website to be "important"? http://www.hydrogenambassadors.com/background/h2-market.php Renewables1 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies—I did see your message above earlier today, but then totally forgot about it. With a quick look over, I can't actually tell if that's a reliable source or not. I'll definitely take a look in closer detail tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. In the Hydrogen industry there are very few people in the world with more experience and considered the reference for the industry than Arno Evers, thanks. Renewables1 (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

After looking more closely, no, that site does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS. The reason is that as far as I can tell, that is a PR company. That means that anything they publish is inherently promotional, and thus cannot be assumed to show information reliably or accurately. We need some sort of source with a neutral editorial staff, like science journals, some conferences (if the presentations are vetted), trade journals, etc. While I certainly believe you when you say that he's very knowledgeable (many promoters and PR agents are), they aren't independent enough from their clients to be considered notable. So I think another source would be better. However, I am certainly no expert in the hydrogen industry, so we could certainly raise the question elsewhere. Probably the first place to start would be on the talk page of the article you think you want to add your info to. It will be easier to do that the relevant info appears on the Avers FAIR-PR site, since its always easier to speak with a real example than with generalizations. If we don't get a clear answer there, there are other places we can look, such asWP:RSN, which is the noticeboard where people discuss whether or not a given thing meets the reliable source guidelines, or we can look for a relevant Wikiproject, which is basically an informal place where editors with similar topic interests gather. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Notification

There is an ARBCOM request which is related to an AN/I thread you recently participated. You may be interested in the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011

This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Help on Ecuador page

I have noticed your editions/deletions recently and I should say, most of them are related to the way the Ecuador page has been set up. There is not a clear separation between references, notes, and citations; all supportive references, links, and more, are under the "references" section. I am adding some extra information to support what is being said in the main body under the same "references" section, at least until the page is cleaned up and we can separate between references from notes, citation and external links. The edition work I am performing cannot be done at once and sometimes I come back to redo certain things (to make them better and more accurate). Deleting portions without previous understanding of the subject, will make my task fruitless. For instance, currently, the Wikipedia Citing sources page, mentions that we can cite Wiki pages in other languages WITH English translation, therefore I will start adding those references on the References section too with a translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleprechaum (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're saying. It looks like the majority of the article right now is supported by direct, inline references (the ideal style for articles). But part of what you've been adding was not supported by references. The last time I reverted, there were two main problems. The first was the change from "The earliest example" to "An interesting example." That is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, which requires that all articles be neutral in tone. Wikipedia can never make the judgment that something is "interesting", or any other word giving value to a particular point. Second, you added "Collahuazo may have been one of the last surviving Inca poets. who where obligated to express themselves using a foreign language" and "The history behind the drama...shares some similarities with the work of Collahuazo." But you didn't provide any new references to support that claim. As such, it appeared to be original research, which is strictly forbidden by WP:OR. So, I felt that with those two problems, I was not comfortable with your additions. The most recent set of additions, however, appear to be much more neutral and better sourced.

Finally, I believe you have misread the WP Citing sources page. Wiki pages, in any language, are not reliable sources. They are a good place to look for information, but you can't actually cite other Wikipages; instead, you have to cite the same citations that were in the other (original) langauge. You also need to give proper credit to the other Wiki if you copy the exact same wording.

I think that, overall, your drive to expand the culture and science sections of Ecuador are good and commendable. I just want to make sure that, as you do that, you follow all of our core policies. For my end, I will work harder to explain exactly why I make the changes that I do. If I see something in your forthcoming edits that needs changing, I'll be sure to explain it on the article's talk page. I hope that my explanation above helps clarify why I reverted where I did. Please, feel free to ask me at any time if you have questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Hey, it appears there are some accusations of edit-warring and personal attacks. I presume you are sick of all this recent bickering, but I thought you can probably add some weight to these complaints by properly helping these editors out with their templates and wiki-policy citations.

By the way, I kind of lost my temper in a recent post. It probably offended you, but this happens to anyone. If the tables were turned and we had a bunch of Chinese POV-pushers, I doubt you'd be much more patient than me. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethics of circumcision

You say quote "since they are performed routinely across the world in many countries" Please show me your reliable source that male circumcision is performed routinely in many countries. The practice is widely considered controversial, As the countries who do not routinely circumcise vastly outnumber those that do. For a country to be considered to partake "routinely circumcising" males it must be customary to a majority of the country's citizens themselves. Furthermore there are those who reside in countries who are perceived to "routinely circumcise" who find the ritual to be very controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 05:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple math here: From the WHO report, which you can find as reference number 9 on Circumcision, 30% of men worldwide are circumcised. That means 70% are not. In order for something to be "mostly controversial," you would need evidence that nearly all of those parents of the other 70% consider it to be "controversial." If you look at Circumcision controversy, you'll see both positive and negative discussions of the issue. See, the issue here is that the burden of proof lie more heavily on those who would make the more extreme claim. There is no doubt that circumcision is at least sometimes controversial. I freely admit that. But you want to state the stronger claim that it is "mostly" controversial, thus, the WP:BURDEN is on you to produce evidence of that fact. If you could, for example, produce a survey that showed that a super-majority (note that "mostly" requires a substantially higher number than 50%) of people worldwide consider it controversial, and you can add that source to the article, then you are more than welcome to do so. Absent such documentation, you are making unverified claims, which can and should be removed per WP:V. And if you want to continue the discussion, please do so on the article's talk page, not my personal talk page, so that interested editors may join in the conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore an ethnocentric view is disingenuous to wikipedia's neutral pov policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drealgrin (talk • contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said, please continue this discussion on the article talk page. This is something that all editors of the article should be involved in. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

a Sci Am Dec 2010 E8 article typo?

I put there a message for you. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All of your points are well noted. My only contra-comment is that I was directed to "produce 'the preceding' at this locale". Thank you VERY MUCH for your input, I will 'revert' the matter to my source. As always, at your service - ~ Betaclamp (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Hi! I was wondering if you could edit the Alexandra Powers page. I found this article online that talk about her personal life: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,308844,00.html Would it be ok to use this article as a reference? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. I believe that the article (and, in general most articles on ew.com) meets our standards for reliable sources. However, you should stick as closely as you can to the factual parts of that article--so, information about her marriage, where she got her first break, etc. You don't really want to use the more substantial/subjective part of that article, so you don't want to use a phrase like "her Bible is the Beauty and the Beast" or "it makes her sad to take off her wedding ring. If you're not sure, you could try making a draft first in your userspace, and then I'd be happy to review your work. Let me know if you need help setting up a userspace copy. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I know that (reading another user's page) you have medical issues that make this difficult, but it would be better if you ask just one person for help. It could be very frustrating for other editors if you ask for their help, and then somebody else already helped you, so they did a lot of work that someone else already did. I know it may be hard, but you should try asking one person for help, then, if they don't respond in a few days, try someone else. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be helpful if you asked only one person, as folks do get annoyed as you'll have noticed. Also, as I've said on my talkpage, that article is 17 years old, so use with caution. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions

I've partially reverted your change - I sorta see your point, but dangit, there's no template for what's needed, for this article, at this time, in the middle of an AfD. --Lexein (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no reason to fight about it at the moment; once the AfD is done (assuming it gets "no consensus" as I expect it will) then we can worry about the right wording. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation

Hi Qwyrxian. I posted a reply to your message at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Cumulative vs redundant reliable sources? 34 hours ago. I explained more about the citation I added. I am sure you misunderstood something about the citation because the Google book's preview is not available. Regards, ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see your comment in the midst of everything else that happened. Regarding the value of the citation, remember, I'm not actually arguing it shouldn't be in the article. Rather, I'm arguing that you need consensus to add it, whereas you're arguing that the mere fact that the source is reliable means it gets to stay. As soon as we figure out whether or not you are correct, then we can get down to the business of actually looking at that source and seeing what it does or doesn't add; I may, in fact, be wrong, because of the Google preview. But I want to have a discussion about it, and I want you to understand how it is you are misunderstanding policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Red Bull

Are you Thai?

I'm 100% Thai blood ! Majoring in International Business !

It's very obvious that Thai holidng 51 % of a share. Because whatever happen thai can take the whole share back. As Chaleo Yoovidhya announced in Thai Medias. The Krating Daeng ( spell : Krating not Kratin, Kratin is a kind of vegetable in Thailand. and Krating is Gaur ) They grew up together! sometime it's very hard to tell that the product calls Red Bull origin from where when you ask somebody who doesn't know anything. Thai people never be 100% proud Thai that Red bull is 100% Thai blood But Krating Daeng is 100 % Thai blood. Because This new Krating Daeng Version calls Red Bull and widely known because the Austrian investor who was very cleaver and made it widely known in the world., They both have invested and made this idea together. Chaleo always says that Red Bull successful because of both country having each other (Austria and Thailand.)

But the truth as the Thai person holding more share and easily judge that Red Bull origin is Thailand.

The logo that you see was designed by Chaleo Yoovidhya ! There's one TV program in Thailand call Fan pan tae (It's about people who know something in What they really like) They showed many thing like who designed the logo and the company information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontomoto (talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No I'm not Thai, but that is irrelevant--all that matters is what our reliable sources say. Please go to Talk:Red Bull and post this information there, as this is something that all interested editors need to discuss. You will need to get consensus there to make this change. Please be ready and able to cite reliable sources. However, Wikipedia policy expressly forbids just continually reverting the changes of other editors--if an editor wants to make a change, and someone has expressed disagreement, they are required to discuss the potential change on the talk page. Not doing so is called edit warring, and can result in you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, the three of us were patient and explained things. Unfortunately, I think he will be blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Anna. I was worried that Ontomoto was possibly editing under both xyr name and as an IP, although the style wasn't identical at first. Since both seem to have stopped after Ontomoto was blocked, it seems that was the case. Well, maybe, just maybe, there will be a little more calmness after the block. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated note, thanks for getting rid of reference to me as a "wiki-tyrant" on my user page! Looks like I'm stirring up nationalist/ethnic pride sentiment around the globe. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You are very patient. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Egg

You mean the part in egg (food) that goes:

"Focusing on the protein and crude fat content, a 2010 USDA study determined that there were no significant differences of these two macronutrients in consumer chicken eggs"

or do you mean:

"Pastured raised free-range hens which forage largely for their own food also tend to produce eggs with higher nutritional quality in having less cholesterol and fats while being several times higher in vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids than standard factory eggs"

In both cases they are not orignal research. If you look at the citations you'll see that is the case. --Jeanpetr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanpetr (talk • contribs) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This as a long time ago; I went back through the edit history, and I haven't edited that section of the article since the beginning of January. I'm comfortable, although not thrilled, with your most recent phrasing. The original research was the fact that you specifically pointed out that they "only" covered to macronutrients. Unless the article itself highlighted that fact, we cannot do so ourselves. As another editor pointed out, that's a form of critique of the original study, which is, itself, a type of original research (note that I mean that in the Wikipedia sense found in our original research policy, not in a more common/general sense). If another study or review article criticized that study for only covering two macronutrients, we could report from that second study. But we cannot critique the study ourselves. While I think the way you phrased it currently is still borderline OR, it's good enough that I don't feel like arguing about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

It appears your attempt at starting WP:Mediation is not going to work after all. Do you now feel ready to try out the idea I proposed? I think there are at least 2 that are reasonable targets to request topic bans for. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation is, at this point, a no-go. As for topic bans, I wonder if you're actually familiar with how they work? That is, you requested to two admins to make topic bans (although I don't think you actually went so far as to directly call for them, and looking it up would be too much effort at the moment). The problem is, individual admins can't call for topic bans under current Wikipedia rules, except for those specific topics that are under general sanctions. These are topics which have previously gone before ArbCom—topics like Scientology, Israel-Palestine issues, and The Troubles. Japanese/Chinese relations, Senkaku Islands, etc. are not under discretionary sanctions. For any article or topic outside of ArbCom sanctions, there are only 4 ways to be article banned: by ArbCom, by User:Jimbo Wales, by the Wikimedia Foundation (almost never done), and by community consensus. That is, individual admins may not ban users--not from individual pages, topics or Wikipedia as a whole. The current accepted practice for getting a topic/page/interaction ban is to start a discussion at the Administrator's noticeboard. However, you're going to need unbelievably strong evidence that the user in question is regularly and intentionally flouting WP policy, is consistently engaging in edits only with the intention of pushing a POV, has shown xyrself incapable of collaborating (playing nicely) with others on a particular topic, etc. Obviously, you're welcome to try, but I'd recommend that you read through the archives on WP:AN to get an idea of both successful and unsuccessful requests. I think you'll find that you don't have anywhere near the level of malfeasance (if, in fact, you have any at all) being demonstrated at these articles to call for topic or page bans.

Should you somehow find an admin willing to make a rogue decision, please not that I will not only oppose such a move, I will take the admin to task for it. During my first major dispute on Wikipedia, regarding Kimchi, an admin unilaterally topic banned an editor from the page. While I had generally disagreed with the editor in almost everything related to the article, I took the admin to WP:ANI, and requested a withdrawal of the topic ban, which xe had no right to give. Simply put, admins have no authority to issue topic/article bans outside of articles under discretionary sanctions--only the community (and the previously referenced special bodies) can do so.

Having said all that, though, I've about run out of patience with those articles. Not in the sense of me abandoning them, but in the sense that I no longer think it's appropriate to tolerate everyone's personal foibles. That means, everyone better actively try to improve the article, and not engage in tendentious editing, or they may find their actions questioned on a noticeboard somewhere. Editors who toy with others (or who, in general, comment about editors instead of edits) may find themselves needing to answer questions on WP:WQA. That is, in a sense, you may be right--we may need to weed out bad behavior through administrative means. But, let me just clarify--in exactly the same way that I've started in the past few days to push Tenmei to recognize that his editing style is causing problems, you, too, need to recognize that your behavior is making things worse. I don't know if it's long term frustration on your part, if it's a matter of feelings "outnumbered", or if it's been a deliberate strategy on your part to provoke some sort of response. Whatever reason you have/had, you need to stop, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right that I may not have enough to convince the admins/arbitrators. I asked User:Magog the Ogre (and later, User:Elen of the Roads) to get involved to see if he or she thinks I have a reasonable shot at this. I have not given them much at the moment, since you wanted to give WP:Mediation a try.

I feel it is important to realize there are times when cooperation is impossible. The sarcastic attitude I have for these other editors is a sign that I have come to such a realization. If a more conciliatory approach was the answer, then your patience and generous offer of WP:Mediation wouldn't have fallen through.

If you haven't noticed it already, the Remin Ribao article issue was a simple test of good faith I threw out to see what kind of responses I'd get. Surprisingly, all four of them jumped at it and tried to defend something that's so clearly indefensible. While I could've forced an RfC to resolve the issue my way, I left the matter open just to see if any of them has the editorial integrity to do things the right way. I am not at all certain if you see what I see in this, however. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

At Bobthefish2's request, I've had a look. I've also attempted a conversation with Tenmei, which I can't say was wholly successful. Since mediation has fallen through, I think the next step is an request for comment on user(s). Arbcom will not accept a case without previous steps, RFCU is more 'hostile' than Mediation, but it should help clarify the issues. I think Qwyrxian is right - having an admin come in on one side would not be a good thing. I also think that if there are specific instances of bad behaviour, you should take those to ANI. Nothing persuades the community to issue topic bans as fast as a subject that seems to turn up there every week. Note however that the behaviour of all sides will be examined, so make sure you are squeaky clean. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I do have a reply in the works, but I'm tired this evening (hope it's nothing more pressing than that), so I'm going to wait until tomorrow to read it over and make sure it sounds right. Qwyrxian (talk)

Thanks for still paying attention to this, Elen. So what's the difference between RFCU and ANI in this case? I'd presume it's just the commentators involved. As for myself, I don't have anything to worry about. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

RfCU is a structured way of examining editor behaviours. You fill in the template with what you think is problematic (which may not necessarily be clear policy breaches at this stage), what you've done to try and fix it, what you'd like to happen. A couple of other editors have to endorse it to agree that there's a problem. The named editor or editors have a space to comment in, other editors can add their views in a controlled way, and the talkpage is used for threaded discussion. It may encourage the editors concerned to address the problem, but it's also a record, which may be used if there's no improvement and it ends up in an arbitration case. ANI is for incidents that need an actual administrator now - edit warring that doesn't quite go up to 3RR violation, civility violations, that kind of thing. An RFCU will stay open for 30 days, ANI reports usually scroll off the page after a couple of days. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The main violations I have in mind are:

Deliberate violation of WP:NPOV
Misuse of warning templates
Repeated denial of cooperation (i.e. adding garbage and refusing to stop/remove despite calls from other editors)
Tag-teaming
Obstruction of editorial processes through faulty citations of WP policies
etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I hope this hasn't sounded aggressive or one sided. I would prefer it if the various 'sides' could come to a compromise, and actually didn't have to keep going back to aANI talking about topic bans, and I believe this would be your preference as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You can both keep talking here; I don't mind. but it turns out I wasn't just tired--first time in a few years that I've gotten the flu. So, apologies, but it will be at least a day or two before I can think well enough to comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Plenty of fluids, keep room warm but well ventilated etc etc. Hope you've got someone to make you chicken soup, and you feel better soon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I am just recovering from a flu I caught on my way back from a conference in the U.S.. Tylenol and lots of fruits help. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay--my head is clearer now, although still getting fully up to speed; it looks like there's been a fair amount of commenting on the articles which I haven't read yet. Regarding the difference between ANI and RFCU, it seems to me that, at this very moment, ANI won't help--as Elen says, it's for things that need administrator intervention right now--something that the tools of an admin can stop. Unless the conversation over there has really degenerated, I doubt that's the case--for example, it would be appropriate if one user was clearly being tendentious, or intentionally uncivil, or something else that was clearly making conversation right now impossible. While the atmosphere there may be difficult to work in, I don't see any actions that require instant action. Rather, this is more of a long term issue, one that RFCU will better address. If you feel it is appropriate to open one (I myself am not so sure), the best way to do so, I think, would begin the long, painful process of gathering diffs that support the problems you describe. Don't file the RFCU, however, until there is a current example of a problem--a specific example of an editing behavior that the user is doing that is inhibiting successful work on the article. Note, in case this wasn't clear, that an RFCU is filed about a single, specific editor; if you have multiple editors you think are causing problems, you'll need to file a separate one for each editor. I myself have never had to participate in an RFCU, although I've read them before.

Having said all of that, I think that it may be in your best interests, though, to get some outside input on the Remin Ribao issue before you do any of this. I recommend going either to the reliable sources noticeboard or the original research noticeboard. The reason why is that for some reason I think you're going to be surprised to find that, looking at Wikipedia editors in general, your position on the article is going to be in the minority, if not just wholeheartedly rejected. There are currently 6 sources, at least 3 of which are generally highly reliable, which state that the translation is a certain way (implying Japanese ownership of the islands). The only thing you have so far set against that is the claim of Wikipedia editors that their translation is incorrect. You say above that keeping the info in the article is "so clearly indefensible"; but one of our 5 core policies, WP:V, says that we always choose verified information over what some editors believe to be true. It's a little tricky, because we're dealing with a translation issue, but without at least 1 source that says "That translation is wrong," I don't see how, in the context of WP's rules, you have anything to stand on. I do agree that the sentence, as it currently stands is not written well; I don't like the whole structure of that section as it's unclear which are statements of fact and which are statements of opinions of the various sides. But I don't see that you have, yet, given a policy-compliant reason for removing the sentence entirely. So before you go escalating to an RFCU, you may want to get some advice about whether your complaints are valid within the Wikipedia rule-set. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is just WP:COMMONSENSE. I have already outlined the obvious flaws dealing with a number of the references and how they contradicted with facts. Since WP:SYN is allowed for the editorial evaluation of what content should be allowed in and what not, I don't see how there's supposed to be an issue. To illustrate this circumstance, you may have 5 reliable sources reporting Obama is a Muslim by the logic of his father being a Muslim. Suppose there are no sources refuting this claim, do you think they will still belong in Obama's Wikipedia article? Probably not. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)