Jump to content

User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Momomentous - response from your message

Hi - I'm new to editing in Wikipedia and frankly only wish to do it sporadically when I encounter a glaring error.

I am the person who wrote that Adam Carolla's politics were mis-characterized.

You asked me where the article is? It is under Adam Carolla in Wikipedia - I thought this was fairly self evident since I had mentioned him, but

perhaps I wasn't clear. If you could insert my comments in the correct place I would appreciate it.

Momomentous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momomentous (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see; you said "Carolla" but I didn't know the first name. I will copy that edit request for you there. In general, if you want to make such a request, go to the article by typing its name into the search box. Then, on the upper left, you should see two tabs: Article and Discussion. Click on Discussion, which brings you to the article's talk page. From there you can use the edit (on the upper right side) to add new information (be sure to add the information at the bottom of the current page). There are, of course, many more options and things you can do, but that should get you started; also, on your talk page, the pre-formatted welcome message I left you at the top has a bunch of links that will give you further information. Thanks for joining and helping improve Wikipedia! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've already made another request there, so I won't copy over the one you already made. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

BPD

It specifically states that "no medications are specific for BPD". If you are going to revert though at least correct the grammar and problems with caps. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But the fact that the medications are used to for the symptoms means that they are used as part of "treatment". I didn't notice the spelling errors; I saw that you had made what appeared to be a substantive change under what seemed to be a deceptive edit summary; that is, it wasn't just spelling changes, but also a meaning change, which is prolly why I didn't look too closely. The way you reworded it now seems okay. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The ref said that medications are used for co morbid symptoms (ie. symptoms of other conditions that are associated with BPD) rather than for BPD itself. The wording from the Lancet 2011 review seem better and will go with that. Seems like this page needs a lot of updating. Feel free to join in.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Check Your Area of Study

Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.

As always, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Already done a few days ago (once I noticed that the usernames were on the page below, just not attached to the projects). No response yet, but I assume that for most of the students this is just an assignment, not a hobby, so I figure they'll check in eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI outing

Thanks for getting involved in the ANI discussion. I was beginning to think I was just crazy. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am absolutely certain that you did not engage in OUTING, and should not have been warned for it. I don't think any of that should have been rev-del'd, either, unless the IP had requested it via OTRS or something like that. I'm going to followup with the relevant admin to request that the respond again on ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'll wait, as it appears that xe hasn't edited since leaving that comment and one more at ANI. If xe doesn't followup the next time xe logs on, I'll re-raise it. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I listed the discussion at WP:RFC. Subsequent responses are making a bit more sense. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

SnoRNA

I notice you are doing some major editing for a series of nucleolar RNA. After reading through about 10 entries, my impression is that the first two paragraphs of the pages are all about their own RNA family. As a result, these paragraphs should be deleted and then summarized into a single sentence that denotes their class/membership. In the end, I believe pages about individual genes should contain as much unique information as possible. For reference, you can look at how P53, ACE2, and CDK1 are done.

On a personal note, these snoRNA pages are a waste of space. There are many dedicated databases out there that do a much better job at cataloging known biological molecules. It'd be better to instead keep a large table with short descriptions and then provide a link to a few relevant databases (in this case, the SnoRNP database). Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was quite at random that I ended up working on those. I was working on the Great Backlog Drive, which basically invites people to try to fix up articles that have had maintenance tags on them for ages. I decided to work in Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing, which collects together articles with a variety of different tags, one of which is {{Cleanup-jargon}}. I did my best to clean up a few SNORNA articles that had the tags, although my opinion is that it is basically inevitable for those pages to be jargon heavy. Over the process of doing that, I saw that the "Small nucleolar RNA" navbox, while listing all of those different articles, was actually only placed on SNORNA pages. I asked the Mol Bio wikiproject, and the one person who responded said it would be fine to add them to the rest. So, I'm going through and manually adding them (I know I should be able to do it with AWB, but I haven't figured out how yet). I know basically nothing about MolBio beyond what I remember from AP Biology and what I can glean from these pages themselves, so I'm not exactly the best person to large scale full scale revisions. My intuition on reading the articles makes me think that your notion of using a longer list article is plausible, but the problem is that many of the articles have unique references and info, meaning it would be tough to consolidate everything concisely. But, perhaps the information isn't really unique or special. The MolBio wikiproject doesn't look very active, but that's probably still the best place to go to propose such a switch. Your description above makes it look like you have knowledge in this area, so maybe this is something you'd be interested in working on? I think there's a lot to be said for editing parts of Wikipedia that aren't hotbeds of international infighting. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It's definitely doable, but I'll pass. It's a high cost and low yield type of project. After all, academics wouldn't trust this and the general public wouldn't understand this. I will look up that wikiproject talk page and paste a copy of these two posts there when I come around to it. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

It appears I was the one who indirectly introduced this WP:CANVAS mess. The person who raised this point was User:Collect, who appeared to have no prior connections to any of this. He made this post along others in the RFC/U shortly after he made some very unhappy protests about a WP:WQA assessment I've made. His contribution history suggested those posts were made in a haste (given the amount of content present). The degree of dissatisfaction he had and the things he said of the review suggested this is a WP:STALK. I would've dealt with this myself, but since this spilled over the Tenmei's RFC/U, I thought you might want to be aware of an alleged motive of an "uninvolved participant". Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, you might be interested in this [1] and that [2]. I am not sure about how you feel things are going with this RFC, but I felt my original recommendation might've been a better course of action :). Anyway, if you feel you've canvassed and would like to withdraw, then you are free to. But personally, I don't think you've made such a mistake. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You can see my comments there. Ajl772 is free to make whatever "motions" xe likes; obviously I would dispute xyr recommendations regarding editing the articles, although it's not like I'm really doing that now anyway while the RFC/U is ongoing. I would also further my argument that even if the canvassing was improper, it was neither malicious (which the editors raising the concern have agreed), nor has it (yet) tainted the RFC/U itself. But I think you're worrying about the whole process involved here too much. Let the community speak. If the community thinks my actions caused irreparable harm to the RfC/U, then so be it. If consensus Tenmei is a great editor who has no problems, then so be it. Lord knows I'm not always right. I filed the RfC/U because my perception is that the 'pedia is being harmed by Tenmei's behaviors. I accept that others have different opinions. I want to hear those opinions and find out what we all can do to move forward positively. This, by the way, is the main reason I would oppose a "motion to close", as I really think this needs to be discussed by people who are not involved, because I need to know if there is a real problem here or if I'm just falling to "see the log in my own eyes". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, we all learn something from this. It's been cool collaborating with you... and my decision is final. :)

I reverted your undo on Misogyny

secularhumanism.org is a reliable source and has its own wikilink Council for Secular Humanism

Having it's own wikipage has nothing whatsoever to do with meeting the reliable source guidelines. I'll take it up on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tamilarasan

{{edit semi-protected}}

The whole paravar article looks ridiculous.the paravars were a low caste and suffered from poverty.u dont have to be archaeologist to understand this.watching tamil movies like citizen or kattamarankaran can make u understand dis fact.sum1 should alter this article for sure.i dont even c 1 tag in the article or proof in the article.please help..

To be honest, I know absolutely nothing about the Indian caste system. I merely rove around, trying to help where I can; one thing I do on occassion is to respond to semi-protected requests, which is about my only involvement with that article. Glancing at it now, I see massive problems. About the best I'll be able to do is to add some templates and pull out the more egregiously unsourced statements. Note that fiction movies do not count as reliable sources at all. The best way for you to help improve the article is to register an account. After 4 days and 10 edits, you'll be able to edit that article directly. I'll try to take a look at it in the next few days myself, but no promises, since it's so far away from my field of knowledge. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

i dont have dat much time too sir.but dis article is ridiculous.nothing makes sense.moreever vanniyars are not related to paravars.dat is the biggest mistake.our caste vanniyars come from a different region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.136.179 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also sir remove the term padyatcchi from the article.the book here [3] is pseudohistory not based on anthropology.u ll surely not find evidences in the book to prove dey are royal race.dey may have been subordinates under pandya rulers but not pandyans themselves.my proof is here[4].also according to wiki [5] pandyas article dey are non tamil naga tribes.i hope u find my info useful.dis all i can do.remove padayatchi sir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.140.223 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For these types of suggestions, you'll have to discuss them at the article's talk page, which you can find here: Talk:Paravar.At the moment, I'm not interested in trying to determine whether one or both of those books are reliable sources. If both meet our standards for reliable sources, then we'll have to list both opinions. In any event, please raise this issue on the article talk page so that other interested editors can discuss it.

Request from Pratullobo

Please explain the procedure for getting Brianhe blocked for outing (read as invasion of privacy I believe)Pratul (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first, more important issue is to have the attempted outing permanently deleted. There's two main ways to do this--at WP:ANI, which you saw I had done earlier, but it seems like it got missed. The other, more reliable way is via sending a message to the Oversighters from the page WP:Requests for oversight. I have just done that now.
If the admin handling the oversight determines that this was attempted outing, they'll first use Revision Deletion to remove the suspected outing from your page in a way that it no longer appears in the history. Then they'll formally warn User:Brianhe. It is unlikely that they will block him, unless xe has previously been warned for WP:OUTING. In general, blocks on Wikipedia are preventative, not punitive, so it's rare that we block someone without first warning them. But, ultimately, that's up to the oversighting admin to decide. I've got your page and Brianhe's page on my watchlist, so I'll see xe sends you any more "warnings." I'm really unclear what was going on with that slew of warnings, at least some of which were for very stale problems.
As a side note, please do read up on the WP:COI policy. I have no idea if it applies to you, and did not follow the link to the attempted outing, but if it does, so be sure to edit within the constraints set out by that policy Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the future please go straight to requests for oversight. Discussing material that may need oversighting on-wiki will draw attention to it, increasing the problem instead of solving it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

May I ask how do I get the COI tag removed from the article homepage of SMERA --Pratul (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could have just removed it, but it makes more sense for me to do it. Even if you do have a COI, the article itself looks fine (I did remove one set of overly positive adjectives, so I see no need for that tag there. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi, Qwyrxian

Recently 4 lists were created: List of Thailand's representatives to Miss Universe, Miss World, Miss International and Miss Earth.

The Miss Universe list already has the same representatives in separate articles, Miss Thailand Universe and Miss Thailand, and the content from Miss Earth belongs to Miss Thailand Universe.

The Miss International list is the only one that is new and didn't exist before, and the Miss World list, looking at the article Miss Thailand World only has representatives since 1985, so the content could be added to that article.

Should it be separate lists for all these Thai representatives or include them in the main article like other national pageants: Miss Brasil, Binibining Pilipinas, Miss Angola, etc.?

Need your input, since it feels no one watches these Thai pages, and decide on the proper course of action. Will add this same message to the talk page of the person who created these articles, see if he can contribute. --John KB (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at them now; I'm going to recommend merger of the two Miss World articles, and will take a look at the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I also recommended a merger of the two Miss Universe articles. Is there a "main" article for Miss Thaliand International or Miss Thailand Earth? If not, then a different approach is needed; either we need to rename the List articles to the more general title, and add info to make the page focused on the competition rather than a list of people (which will require gathering more info), or we can just leave them as they are until such time as a general article on the competition is made. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The first runner-up from Miss Thailand Universe goes to Miss Earth, so List of Thailand representatives at Miss Earth can be added there, like Miss Angola or Miss Montenegro, with the runner-ups that go to international competitions. The List of Thailand representatives at Miss International is the only one that seems to be new and not a content fork. --John KB (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't forget about this, but since those 2 events were more complicated, I wanted to do some more research before making a recommendation. I'll take a look at the articles within a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the process of adding references to those articles, which were mostly unreferenced. That will help. Just need you to keep an eye on them, because it seems no one is watching them except me and a Thai content creator. Are you still in Japan? How are you doing after the earthquake? --John KB (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine--I'm pretty far away from the quake center. I don't know how much time I'll have for WP in the next few days, but I will try to check back in on those articles, I swear. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review changes -- seeking to remove reference concerns

Thanks! AtHoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Paravar

Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sorry I'm not helping so much. But I really do think you're doing a great job in such a difficult situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. My bet is that I'll do my stuff and then it will get screwed up by POV pushers etc, but I live in hope. It is the lack of 'constructive criticism that is killing me. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Update - feel free to tell me off for not following AGF slavishly. There has been a fair amount of activity in the last few hours & I have discounted much of it because I cannot see a sufficient amount of the sources. Usually this would be contrary to policy but in the instance of this article, where there has been a lot of POV pushing etc, I see little alternative but to insist on seeing the thing for myself. There has been far too much plucking of single sentences out of context etc and it is my opinion that this is damaging to the integrity of the article.
BTW, the word catamaran may derive from Tamil. That does not mean that the boat design itself does, of course. It is referred to further up the article and, for now, I've left it there with a cite request. The sentence originally did not mention the Polynesians, but I fixed that. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The TC 210 Team

Hey, this is darklavalizard from the TC 210 class at Michigan State University. I see you were assigned to be my groups online mentor, nice to meet you. Darklavalizard (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, this is murph146 from the TC 210 class. Our topic is the media Access Project. I look forward to having you assist us with any questions. Later. Murph146 (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello to both of you. One first hint: whenever you make a comment on a talk page (either on an article talk page or on a user talkpage, like this one), at the very end of your post, write four tildas (~~~~). This will "sign" your post, automatically adding your username (with a link to your userpages), as well as include the date/time you signed the posts.
I know that y'all have a bunch of editing to do for Assignment 8, so feel free to dive in and make some changes. If you have any questions, either before or after that process, please feel free to ask. I know you're probably not yet to the point of even thinking about the big project on Media Access Project, but let me know if you have any questions there as well. I'm always happy to help! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm stepiena and I'm also in the TC210 group. Thanks in advance for helping us learn to use Wikipedia. Stepiena (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome as well! Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, this is terryhow and i'm in the TC 210 class. See that you were assigned as our group mentor. Good to heat that and good to meet you. terryhow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Hey this is Blair Ellison and I am also in TC 210. I just stopped by to say hey and its good to finally meet our mentor. elliso56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

And good to meet both of you as well! As above, you're more than welcome to ask me questions at any time, about these projects or anything on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, be sure to sign all of your posts on talk pages with four tildas (~~~~), as this will automatically sign and timestamp your posts. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

National Broadband Plan (United States) group

For the group of terrhow, elliso56, and (eventually, I assume) Jassu86: if you want something to start working on, the lead of the article is currently improperly formatted in 2 ways. First, at the end of the last paragraph of the lead, it says, "President Obama himself" followed by an external link (labeled "[2]"). That link should actually be turned into a reference and appended to the end of the quotation, rather than be done as a direct link. Second, that section has 2 other external links (you can spot them by the little symbol that looks like a box with an arrow pointing out to the upper right) that shouldn't be there. We almost never want direct links in the middle of texts. I'll leave it to you to figure out what should be done with them. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

  1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
  2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
  3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto

That article is the longest feature ever written on him - and yes its half about him (which should be included), and Shuva Israel is why hes prominent and should also be included. Also dont understand how they can just remove it. Why ? Babasalichai (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We're temporarily removing it while we come to a consensus on what to include. That's how Wikipedia works most of the time: one person makes a bold addition, someone else says, "Hmm, that's not quite right," and then reverts that addition, then everyone goes to the talk page and discusses the section until a consensus is reached to determine exactly what to include. This cycle is called BRD, and something that a lot of editors find works best for controversial articles like this one. No one is saying it can't be there at all--we're just saying we need to discuss it. So do that, please, on the article's talk page. We need a consensus decision about how much of the Forward article to include. This may take a few days, which is fine, because it's much better to get it right than to get it "now"--we're an encyclopedia, not a news site.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have done that and it was removed - Should I do it again on talk ? Babasalichai (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I am informing you of this [6] discussion because of your involvement in this [7] previous ANI. Onthegogo (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athoc

Greetings! I have no particular plans to recreate the page Athoc if it is deleted, or any affiliation with/ vested interest in the company. You may have me confused with User:Andrew Young US, which is understandable since some discussion about his edits has occurred on my talk page. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that. I fixed it on the the AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No not copyvio

Hello there, this text is NOT a copyvio, see: http://www.zoologischemededelingen.nl/ "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See also: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Zoologische_Mededelingen for explanation about the licence at commons. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
And if you are new to copyvio patrolling, please dont start reporting people right away! You didnt even give me time to respond!Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, after seeing that (note that nothing on the pdf itself states that it's CC-BY-SA), it appears that it's probably not a copyvio--my apologies. I have removed the CSDs and will go request the CCI be withdrawn. However, having said that, these articles are still totally inappropriate for Wikipedia (clear vioaltion of WP:NOT). We do not provide millimeter by millimeter description of biological specimens. We provide general, encyclopedic overviews in clear, summarized prose. Basically, these hundreds of articles are actually damaging, because other than the infobox, none of the text is actually what belongs in a Wikipedia article; furthermore, even if it's not a copyvio, it's definitely WP:Plagiarism. Wouldn't it be far, far better to, instead of creating hundreds of articles that have no encyclopedic info, to create one, fix it carefully, then move on to the next? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, no worries, I didnt know I had to use a template so Its more or less my own bad. Well, one could argue the description of the adult is too technical, and I could leave those out if you prefer. I did skim the text, since there are also descriptions of the male and female genitalia, which are only interesting to scientists. The distribution and biology (if known) are encyclopedic though. I personally think the description of the adult might be of interest, because it is the only way to distinguish these species from one another. It might be better to provide a link to the Glossary_of_Lepidopteran_terms if I keep them however. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please also note that much of the words used are technical but are the proper name for certain parts of the anatomy of these species and cannot be written in any other way. Just like a toe, hand, finger, etc. Insects have certain body parts that are specifically named. If you want to correctly discribe the species, you need to use these terms. Most of the time, these descriptions are copyrighted, but since these are not, I decided to put them in. I will drop a line at our wikiproject and ask what they think. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently I've been adding some references to wiki articles and found that I can't include links in journal article citations (e.g. the article link or the doi of the journal article). As a new wiki contributor I probably haven't been doing something right. Other journal citations on other wiki pages have been able to post links to their references and I wonder what I haven't done. If you have time please help, thanks in advance. Bstephens393 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way to see is what User:Hertz1888 did to fix the reference you added to Physical exercise. This link shows your addition of the reference. In this link, Hertz1888 altered the formatting of your url and a few of the other parameters so that it displays properly. I think the main thing is that you did have "http://" before the web address. In most (although not all) cases, the "http://" is necessary to get links to display properly.
Does this seem to fix the problem? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Professor Obar Concerns

Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:

Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Related question to the project: I noticed when posting the above that you live in Japan. I hope all is well where you are, but since there is things going on there that are FAR more important than Wikipedia, do you need someone else to take over your mentees or are you in a "safe section" of Japan that you can continue? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message; I think you can see by my earlier response to Prof. Obar's questions that I concur with allowing him control of the work until the project is complete. Regarding the earthquake, thank you for the concern, but yes, I am far away from the earthquake and wholly unaffected (in a direct sense, obviously we all are effected emotionally and care greatly for those directly involved). So I've got no problems remaining a mentor.
I haven't had access to WP for a couple of days (for wholly familial reasons), so I'll go check in on my mentees. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I just tell you of my relief that someone has broached the Japan issue with you? I've been aware for some time of your location but was too afraid of possibly causing upset to enquire as to your wellbeing etc. Look after yourself, and yours. - Sitush (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note of concern. I don't think any editor would be upset to hear a nicely worded message of concern. Some editors will be like myself--far away with no direct effects; others may be facing rolling blackouts or more direct worries. Others, of course, may have friends and family in the effected area. But I've been very pleased to hear from all sorts of people, many of whom I only know a little bit (like here on WP) expressing their feelings of sympathy. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Very glad to hear you are doing well in your part of Japan. That makes me feel better that our worldwide community of Wikipedians are safe and sound. :) On the mentee-side of things, please let me know if I can be of assistance on anything. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed on Twitter that issued from the nuclear plant are beginning to move south toward the southern part of Japan (even making it, in VERY "miniscule" amounts, to the Washington State coast). With that said, if there comes a time, God forbid, that you have to pack up and take shelter elsewhere, like the US (or wherever your home country may be), please let me know and I will put someone in your spot so you can take care of things on your end and not worry (like it would be the last thing on your mind) about Wikipedia issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lighting this back up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoops--missed this one before. But anyway, are you kidding? Wikipedia's the first thing I think of, morning, noon, and night! Neither rain, nor sleet, nor snow, or something like that. But yes, if anything should make me unable to keep "ambassadoring", I'll certainly let you know here or by email. At the moment, my mentees haven't done very much, so other than a few suggestions, I'm waiting on them. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, same here, just kinda waitin'. Have been for awhile. First it was Spring Break, now, well, I am not really sure to be honest. Oh and the saying, it was originally "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these courageous couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds" and was said some 2,500 years ago by a Greek historian, Herodotus. Though the modern day version is "Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds". But really neither is the United States Postal Service's slogan, they don't have one at all. :) Gotta love Google, that and USPS.com. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...and apparently there was just a 6.3 earthquake off Iwaki on Honshu, according to the Twitter-wires (as I like to call them). That is freaky timing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011



This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Info_box_title

Would you maybe comment on my confusion in Talk:Sea_of_Japan#Info_box_title. I didn't remember the infobox title being "Sea of Japan (East Sea)" and was going to leave the change in. Do you remember when the title was set that way? Is the rule I quoted 'why' it is that way? It is hard to remember all the 'correct' choices everywhere. Like that China is more than the PRC. (sigh) Thanks. Shenme (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing--I hadn't seen that change. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I have a tendency to glaze over infoboxes except when I change gets made to them, so I never noticed the dual name. Your analysis of the guidelines is correct, so I went ahead and changed the article to match those guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Northeast Asia

Please take a look at the article and its history. There is an editor who doesn't follow the MoS and s/he won't listen my rationale. I think the article is an international article and it should use just Sea of Japan. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given the user a 3RR warning, and have put the page on my watch list. You are definitely correct that Sea of Japan is the correct name for this article; if the user wants to change that, xe'll need a site-wide agreement to change the naming conventions. I'll also try to check on on the editor's contribution list every so often to make sure they don't try to spread the change to other pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Legitimate discussion"

Why do you consider the images sub-page "illegitimate"? And if you read the note on the sub-page, you'll see it says not to go over old issues again, not that anyone pays attention to that. So if old issues don't go there, and new issues don't go there, what should go there? The idea that discussions about "images" should go on the "discussions about images" page doesn't seem too difficult.—Chowbok ☠ 23:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the attempt to relegate the discussion to the subpage is just a very obvious attempt to hide the issue in a way that makes it impossible to make changes. Are you saying that if we get consensus on that subpage that we can then go ahead and make the changes to the article? No, of course that wouldn't happen--we'd be told we don't have real consensus, which is reasonable. Talk:Muhammad has over 1200 watchers, while Talk:Muhammad/images has less than 150. This conversation is fundamentally different from the normal "get rid of the images" one. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I'm not attempting to bury the discussion, and you have no reason to accuse me of such. The conversation has been on the main page for a week, everybody knows about it by now.—Chowbok ☠ 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't accusing you--I was accusing the system, of which you are merely acting as a part. In any event, I won't revert it any more--I'll take the discussion to the other page, get consensus there, and move ahead with whatever decision that consensus reaches. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding International Education Center Wikipage

Hi Qwyrxian

Sorry for my previous oversight in editing the Wikipedia page for International Education Center. I have already paraphrased the text and re-included it in the Wikipedia page. Please kindly advise me if there is anything that needs change.

Besides the History section, I also plan to add an Infobox to the page. I think that it is also necessary to move this Wikipedia page to a new page named International Education College to reflect the change of the institution name. Do you recommend the move?

Thank you

Victorleezhiyu (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The name change is definitely correct, as is the addition of the infobox. I'll go take a look at the history section in detail now. Thanks very much for working on this article! Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I made a bunch of edits to remove unnecessary details and copy edit. Let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thai representatives (cont.)

Added references to the article, names in Thai for verification purposes. Basically the broadest references I found. --John KB (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Those look helpful. I commented on Talk:Miss Thailand Universe that I think the merges can proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

I fear Ludwigs2's approach has derailed the issue. No one's listening once one goes anywhere near WP:NOTCENSORED. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No kidding. The list you just put up, step by step, is a good attempt to force the conversation back. I'll take a look at each of them later and try to provide my feedback. I do see that a couple of other editors may be inclined at least to move forward on the Ka'ba picture, which is certainly a step in the right direction. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Kimchi

The fermentation issue is done and decided. Please do not attempt to change the consensus phrasing about fermentation without first getting a new consensus on the article's talk page. I understand that you didn't agree with that decision, but you cannot just revert/alter it just because you don't agree with it. Please note that you will need to provide new evidence to show that somehow our previous decision was wrong or misguided. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus when there's no consensus. Dispute resolution instructs periodic edit attempts. Don't take it personally. Also, could you refrain from shadowing my edits? Thanks.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Kimchi is on my watchlist, and will remain there as long as I am active Wikipedian. As for shadowing your edits...well, I do admit that, upon seeing you suddenly return to the settled issue on Kimchi, I wondered whether you had been inactive since last year or simply hadn't been on that page, so I checked your contributions. However, the only other place I reverted you on Korean cuisine has also been on my watchlist for a while. And even though I think you're wrong on Korean cuisine, I won't revert your change there again unless there seems to be a consensus of other editors to maintain the prior phrasing, as it isn't that important to me. As a side note, I wasn't actually using the other wikipage as evidence, I was using them as a short cut to the other evidence. Those pages site clear, reliable sources stating that some of the people who lived in Korean a long time ago were semi-nomadic (=semi-sedentary). But, again, it's not that important to me. Also, I don't intend to follow you around Wikipedia. Since some of the areas we edit overlap, it may well be that you'll see me responding to your edits again, but that's not through any particular interest in you.
However, regarding Kimchi, you're wrong if you state there was no consensus--there was consensus except for two editors (if I remember correctly) of you and one other editor. Note that consensus doesn't not mean 100% of people need to agree. If you wish to change the phrasing on fermentation, you'll need to present new evidence on the article's talk page to demonstrate why consensus should change. Until such time as you can show that change, please do not start an edit war on the article page. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Images removed

Hi I would like to know how can i put the images? I uploaded an image to Pooja Chopra and seems like you have removed it, just wanted to tell u that thats our own image and the images are provided by Pooja Chopra miss india itself, kindly clarify! or how can i put the same images back! kimozyssKimozyss (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If the images were taken as a part of the Miss India competition, then those images belong to whatever corporation runs Miss India, and thus cannot be used here. If there were taken by Chopra herself (or someone working with her), then they belong to her; in that case, they could be donated to Wikipedia. If you personally own those pictures, please follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note, though, that if the pictures were taken by a modeling agency, by a television show, a newspaper, etc.--i.e., anyone other than Chopra herself, then it is the picture taker that holds the copyright. Only the copyright holder may donate the pictures. So, for example Chopra cannot donate pictures of herself that were taken by someone else. Check out that linked page, and feel free to ask me again if you have questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

HelpOthers.org

We're rather surprised, and amused, to see this response. HelpOthers.org is one of the leading websites for random acts of kindness, spreading over a million "smile cards" in over 100 countries, with tens of thousands of published stories and members. It has been featured on CNN, and there are many press stories like Science of Mind's Raising Kindness Karma and videos on Global Oneness Project that speak of its history. Please let us know if you need anything else from us to reinstate the listing.

Thanks!

--Bummiggity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bummiggity (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at the CNN report and that does appear to support the claim. The problem is that Youtube videos aren't reliable sources, and also there are copyright issues in linking to them (unless they are posted on an "official" channel, which that is not). I'll look around later today and try to find something we can use to verify that claim and re-add HelpOthers.org. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm...I can't find anything. Do you, by any chance, have a full citation for the CNN report? We would need the name of the program along with the original airdate (and time, if available). If you have that, I would be happy to extract a suitable phrase from the CNN article to include in the Random acts of kindness page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. How about an article that was featured in Science of Mind titled Raising Kindness Karma? [8] Thanks again for all your help!
No, that doesn't help, because (unless I'm just missing it), that article doesn't actually discuss HelpOthers.org. It mentions their name in a footnote as the place to get Smile cards; the rest of the article is about other groups and other websites. I do think the best thing would be to get the key citation info for the CNN report. Again, all we need is the name of the program and the original airdate, and we could then add that as a reference. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the citation info from CNN [9]. Let me know if you need anything else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bummiggity (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
That is perfect, thank you! I will add it to the page right now. As a side note, if you had, or in the future get, one or two more reliable sources that comment on your website, we could actually develop a full article on HelpOthers.org. To have an independent article, we need to show that the site is fully notable per the notability guidelines for web content, which is usually done by showing that the site "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". So if you find another citation, or another one arises in the future, let me know, and I'd be happy to help work through that process with you as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A thought

I had noticed a comment from you, and I wish I would have seen it in time to comment. You stated "I'm not just exaggerating when I say that I really don't understand why you would walk away after a failed RfA" and I understand your sentiments. I'd like to show a statement I made which is just as true: "I had heard of this, but did not understand" which references leaving after RfA. But I do understand now, and it is a problem. At least IMO. Thanks. My76Strat (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I do believe you (and Dusti, and others) who say that they feel so put upon, so beaten down, that they feel like leaving. But, while I believe it, I don't understand it. Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough. I mean, I do get sad and unhappy when my actions on WP are misunderstood or misconstrued. But I can't imagine walking away from the whole project because of that. I mean, I expect to file my own RfA, sooner or later, because I think the project needs admins to survive so it's incumbent on those of us who have the time/inclination to use the tools to pick them up. I fully expect that my behavior will be scrutinized and criticized. I may well fail, possibly more than once. But I actually can't imagine what anyone could say to me that would make me want to stop editing altogether. Again, though, I haven't been through it, so maybe my problem is simply one of lack of imagination. I do agree with everyone that the atmosphere at RFA should be changed, although, I also don't know how we would do so while still allowing community input. I wish that whatever it is that upsets people so much could be altered, but part of my problem is that I don't even see what it is that's upsetting people. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for protection

moved from my user pageQwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I made a request for protection concerning a series of paragraphs that I had included in the King of the Hill article. This request seems to have been overlooked or refused without directing any correspondence directly to me. I can not understand why the observations concerning the inclusion Asians in the King of the Hill television series is perceived as subjective or irrelevant when it is all based on fact.No one can deny that Judge included a large number of Asians in his series. Why then is this deemed interpretive if it is included in the article? Wikipedia is censoring the topic of race, but not censoring the topics of sexual orientation, political orientation or other easily verifiable facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs)

There are multiple reasons why. First, it's not actually possible to "protect" individual paragraphs in an article (articles are either protected as a whole or not protected at all). Second, protection is never done simply because one editor thinks something is a good idea (i.e., because they wrote something they think should be in the 'pedia)--it's done to stop vandalism, or because there is a dispute that cannot be handled in any other way. Third, if you read what I and 2 other editors wrote on Talk:King of the Hill, the problem is that you are fundamentally misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. It is never acceptable to draw our own conclusions about the subjects we write about. Doing so is called original research, and is always forbidden in Wikipedia articles. No one is censoring Wikipedia. Rather, we are saying that if reliable sources have already drawn the conclusions you're talking about, then cite those sources, summarize what they say, and include that information (as long as it isn't giving the topic undue weight). Does that make sense? You even say above that these are your "observations". Wikipedia doesn't report observations--it reports what other, reliable sources have observed. Please feel free to ask for more information about this either here or on the article's page if you don't understand.
Finally, please note that if you want to talk to other editors, you should do so on the person's talk page, not their user page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

You state that I am borderline because I have attacked other editors. I would like to have some support of this before I proceed to make a complaint. I am aware of having defended my position. There is only one other editor involved in this scenario - that is yourself. I exclude the anonymous person who deleted my contributions. If you feel that you have been attacked please inform me briefly of how, when and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous person is an editor just like any other. Wikipedia explicitly allows people to edit anonymously. Also, User:TechnoSymbiosis has responded on that talk page. Furthermore, on Mike Judge, User:Materialscientist reverted you, and thus could also be considered a part of your potential attack. What I am calling your attack is your claim, shown in this series of edits, that you, "accuse you all of race-related discrimination with the goal or ignoring, excluding and marginalizing." You are directly stating that those responding and/or removing the OR you added are engaging in discrimination. Some editors could easily read this as a personal attack, especially since we are following one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. Now, you may well have not been aware of our requirements that people be civil and not attack others, so as long as you don't continue to make such claims disparaging the motives of others, you're fine. Just to repeat this one more time: if you find valid, reliable sources that have similar information, you may summarize them and include them in the article. For example, look at South Park#Criticism and controversy for an example of how this type of sourced criticism appears in a current article about a cartoon. Thus, no one is discriminating here at all. All we are requiring is the same thing required of every Wikipedia editor--to not provide your own interpretation, but to only summarize what other sources have said.
Just to clarify, I'm not particularly offended or upset by your words--very rarely does what others on Wikipedia say bother me all that much. I'm just letting you know that you need to be careful to stop that kind of criticism. One very helpful phrase you may hear in various places and in various forms on WP is "Discuss edits, not editors". So, don't accuse us all of discriminatory practices--instead, focus on the content itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

kimozyss

I dont understand whats wrong in the text i have edited? all the articles i have used are cited proper, can you pls explain!! And may i know your denomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimozyss (talk • contribs) 07:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV. We may not make statements of praise of Chopra (or any other article subjects)--for example, your sentence, "She came, she saw, she conquered" is completely the wrong tone for a Wikipedia article. We need to state neutrally and factually what we did. I did remove one source you added that could possibly be re-added, about the charities she's currently working with; we'd probably need to make a new section that discusses her charity work separately (because it isn't directly related to those beauty competitions).
A number of other things you added were unsourced (for example, "he got some of the loudest applause for bravely taking on the contest despite of a broken ankle"), others are simply not relevant to her encyclopedia story (the names and details of her personal trainer and wardrobe consultant). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop deleting Heine's updated page!!

Hello, please, stop deleting the new version of Heine's page.

You say: "Please discuss this on talk--when you make a bold change, and someone reverts it, you must discuss the issue on the talk page"

It has been discussed in the talk page, but you just deleted it.

Several people have worked on the new version and it has been submitted in the TalkPage. Please also see in the TalkPage the list of errors that still appeared in the old version.

The new version has been updated and corrected, several notable references have been added. No important, true and accurate elements of the old version have been deleted. Only the structure has changed! It's not forbidden by Wikipedia's policy to change the structure of an article and it is highly recommended to add notable references and information corresponding to an artist's evolution, which is the case here. Cute-snoopy (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the new version. All I'm saying is that per standard editing practice, if a bold change is made to an article, and then reverted, then next step is to go to the article's talk page and then discuss the proposed change. This process is called Bold, revert, delete. So it may well be that your new version is better, but you need to get consensus on the talk page to make the change. That's all. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:King of the Hill

I just wanted to thank you again for defending me on Talk:King of the Hill. I'm about at my wits end with that....user, so your cool head is a welcome presence. Have a good day. 70.242.1.148 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I keep trying to bring xem over to seeing the WP point of view, but if you look at xyr talk page, it's pretty clear that xe has given up hope on Wikipedia. Hey, maybe Afropedia could work...? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pygmy goats

You said...

"The harm in providing a link is that it is explicitly forbidden by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSPAM. Note that WP:SPAM doesn't require that the website that is promoted be commercial; links to charities, personal websites, and commercial sites are all equally spam. External links must meet the criteria laid out in WP:EL. The very fact that your reason for wanting to keep it in is because you got hits off of it is the evidence that it's spam. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)"

My reason for wanting to keep it in is because I get hits from it and messages from people who say I enjoy my site - therefore the reason I enjoy getting hits is because I enjoy the fact that others are benefiting from my site and are enjoying it themselves.

Who wrote these Wikipedia WP policies and guidelines? I can accept that you may wish to curtail links to commercial sites, and possibly links to unreliable personal websites. But to curtail links to charities seems a bit OTT.

Also, I'm sure most of the "external links" I've seen on Wikipedia articles should be removed under these rules. For example, what about the link to the Pygmy Goat Club? Surely that's a commercial site, as you have to pay to be a member of the club? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.153.192 (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are almost all written based on community consensus; in other words, it's the overall judgment of the community that we don't want such links. Take a look at WP:EL (the guideline on external links)--you'll note that it explicitly states that fan sites are almost never eligible to be external links. I'll take a look at the site you mention, it may need to go as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Those links are borderline. The one time organizations can be on pages like this is if they are widely recognized as the national association related to the topic. Those links maybe should go, and if you remove them, I won't object. But I'm a little hesitant to remove them myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_8&oldid=647851999"