User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

STOP harassing me with words like "forbidden," etc.

Stop it! You cannot--i repeat, CANNOT--stifle the open process of people's voicing their concerns about you on the nomination page. You can't forbid me from informing others about this process just so that you can attempt to protect the exhibition of inevitable opposition against your nomination for the administrative position.

Should you continue to do so, I'll muster the effort to have your nomination process redone because your actions are tainting the instant one.

In fact, altogether, if you are going to make up policy--like that I'm forbidden from doing what I'm clearly able to do--stop leaving such non-Wikipedia-promulgated messages on my talk page. Understand? I know you're in Japan, but I don't speak Japanese, so I'm sincerely hoping you can understand EVERY word that I'm saying in English. ("Use GOOGLE translation to translate this." TRANSLATING THIS GOOGLE TRANSLATION SUGGESTION IN OTHER WORDS (Japanese Translation): このを翻訳するには、Google翻訳を使用して)(Correction Made, Per Diannnaaa's observation)

Your cooperation would be appreciated, and take care! Diligent007 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS is a real policy. If you were to persist in leaving messages for people saying "go vote against Q now", you would find that you weren't able to do it, because you would have been blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but Elen, you see, I did not do so! I invited one to either support or oppose, and, hence, I was not blocked. Yet, in spite of the fact that I have offered just the opportunity for others to chime in, Qwyrxian has falsely made it seem as I have actually specifically sought people to oppose Qwyrxian. In this respect, his application of the above policy is misplaced and, in effect, such a manipulated policy became one of Qwyrxian's own, and that's the real issue here. Diligent007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Writing "Go fuck yourself" in Japanese on this page is unacceptable behaviour, Diligent007. You could be blocked for that type of behavior. Please read the material at WP:CANVASS as well. You were attempting to influence the outcome of the RFA discussion by notifying specific people who you thought would oppose the RFA, and this type of behaviour is considered disruptive, and is not permitted under the canvassing rule. This message is being copied onto Diligent007's talk page. --Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant to delete that part before posting on Wikipedia. I was just playing around on Google translation to see how it would look, and did not remove that last part when copying and pasting--it's my first time using that system (and had I known to read the Japanese lettering afterwards, I would have noticed that, but I didn't.)

I'll go ahead and make the overt action of removing it now. Thanks for taking the time to translate and proofread the message, DiannaaDiligent007 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Your behavior surrounding the discussion of Q's candidacy has been wholly unacceptable. And, ironically enough, your stridency, and Q's moderation in the face of it, was one reason for my support of his candidacy. LHM 19:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Wiki-Love for Diligent007 and his sock. lol --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yehhhh...I think I'll decline to throw gasoline on that fire. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wondering...

I wonder which of us will be the first to reach WP:100? You started earlier, then I passed you, and you then caught up with me, and now we've been slowly creeping up tied! :) We are currently tied at 94, so are there any guessers? ;) Good luck with your new job when you do pass! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't think I was going to make it--with so little time to go, I thought I'd be stuck in the high nineties. But it looks like while I was answering the two last minute questions, I've just now hit 100. Which reminds me, time to go support yours; I've been planning to do so, but thought I'd wait until mine is done/nearly done. Good luck to you, too, and hopefully you won't have to encounter a "paroxysm of tecnhicolor hyper-drama" :).Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well good luck! Looks like you beat me by 12 minutes! :P Fortunately, I don't seem to have run into any drama and canvassing; I only had 4chan attacks on my RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw that note about 4chan on your RfA itself; what did you do to piss off 4chan? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably by sending vandals to AIV and tagging silly pages for speedy deletion. Congratulations on becoming an administrator too! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE question

Thanks for answering my question given that there was so little time left in the discussion. I'm surprised you answered it so thoroughly! I was aware of the Village pump discussion of the matter, and I've often brought it up to (long-time) editors who prematurely nominate AfDs. There's at least one individual who continues to do this because he wants others to clean-up the articles in a WP:BURDEN fashion.

Anyway, it looks like you are in the clear for adminship. Let me offer you a round of applause! *clap clap clap!* I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Early Congrats

It's 'Pending Closure...' but I wanted to say congrats early since I can't imagine an abundance of editors coming in tonight to oppose. Let me know if there is any indefing Jimbo or deleting the main page in the works, I wanna be there to watch.--v/r - TP 02:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS

I've been known to oppose illogic when it relates to the MOS, so I'm no purveyor of the MOS as god. But you didn't answer where in the MOS it states you can't wikilink a slogan . . . to what is apparently an article about the use of the slogan, including a well researched though unsourced list of TV stations using the slogan. I don't have a dog in this fight, other than to see this constant edit warring going on. I trace the link, and there's a real article about the real subject. It is appropriate linking and back to my prime directive here, it aids in passing knowledge. Why prevent that? Why do you go out of your way to forcibly prevent the passing of this knowledge, TV history? This minor, minor technicality, this MOS issue you seem to have with a wikilink, is not even at the level of a misspelled word, much less a specific technical noun in an article. People come to wikipedia to learn. We edit to help them learn about what we know. I also read to learn what I don't know fully. Wikilinks serve to direct us all to further information. They are good things. And as I quote on my user page "Knowledge is good." Why is that your enemy? Why do you spend so much time preventing knowledge from being passed? Your motives and effort to hide information, perhaps even (I haven't looked) to delete information, seriously scares me. Those are not the becoming qualities I want in a person with so much authority as an administrator. Trackinfo (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to prevent the information from being passed, I'm trying to do two things: 1) revert this disruptive editor consistently and regularly, hoping against hope that eventually they will stop making these highly dubious additions or at least, for once, talk to someone about what they're doing and 2) prevent the actual title of the show from being changed from what it really is. Maybe, because this isn't actually a quotation, maybe I'm wrong to view it the way I have been. I accept that. Since no one ever disagreed until now, I naturally assumed that my edits were alright. Now that you've mentioned you disagree, I'll wait until either you agree or until a consensus somewhere says either way. However, I will say that I don't accept the principle that our goal is always to keep information. By that logic, we would never remove any information from any of our articles; but we do--we exercise good editorial judgment, remove unsourced information, and, in this case, make sure information follows our style guide (with the possibility for exceptions, of course). I'm happy to raise the issue at WT:MOS; I think I'll need to do that later as I only have a short time before I have to go away from Wikipedia for a while and I have a few things to deal with first. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Votestacking

Hello and congratulations on your impending administratorship,

The canvassing and attempted votestacking are very instructive. This episode shows that canvassing "works" in that it can motivate a handful of predisposed editors to take an action when they get a selective message. It also shows, that in a high-visibility case like an RfA, it "doesn't work" because there of lots of eyes trained on the process. I will remember this, and I hope and trust that you will too, because similar scenarios play out all the time in less visible areas of this encyclopedia. Canvassing violates our standards whether five people are involved or two hundred. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or even one, perhaps.... like this edit, from an editor that I have reason to believe (see end of page) is well aware aware of the rules on canvassing, which was successful in producing this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and possibly some others but I think that is quite enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

here it comes

You;re gonna be an admin. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

You handled all the RfA drama quite well, considering some of it was so personally directed. You'll make a good admin, especially from what I saw at the RfA. Regards, First Light (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your RfA…

…has exhibited a consensus among members of the English Wikipedia project to allow you access to the administrator maintenance tool-set; congratulations! Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the tools, there are a host of pages geared for new admins, and also hop over to Meta to learn how to get access to the wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel should you so desire. Also, please take advantage of the constructive criticism you were offered through the oppositions, and use that to become a better volunteer member of our great project. Thank you for volunteering; now I hear there is a clean-up on aisle 4. You can get your mop on the way . -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work Qwyrxian. jorgenev 05:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and a thank you to everyone (though I suppose I shall be setting about thankspamming now...hey, maybe a good way to make use of Wikilove?). I will absolutely take into account the concerns of other users on my RfA, and I'm actually going to follow up with a couple of them individually regarding their concerns. <joke>Right after I go block every POV pushing opponent I've ever had/currently have in every debate, fully lock a few articles in the obviously correct state, and plaster my victory message across the main page.</joke> Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the opposers were concerned about Jimbo. Maybe you should block him as your first admin action? :P --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Qwyrxian! And thanks for the nice personalized thanks :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Magic Janitor Powers

	⚖ Enchanted T-Shirt Uniform of the Janitorial Cabal ⚖
	Good job. I'm sure you will use it well. Don't forget, the shirt will turn blue when there's a heavy CSD backlog. --Σ talkcontribs 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming an administrator

Congratulations!!! You stayed so cool, we could have put you in a salad and called you cucumber. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, nice to see the Streisand Effect still works . I see you've already got your uniform issue T-shirt. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats as well!--NortyNort (Holla) 08:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comments in your post-RFA message. If ever need anything, let me know. Best regards, Steven Walling • talk 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...

... is now OVER. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this one specifically I have to respond to. Be careful with that wit, Demiurge1000; when I laugh out loud at work, sometimes people stare. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Achievement

This is a great time when every user that sees your page wants to comment on your work. As a result of your overwhelming good responses, I am giving you more Barnstars for your new achievement. This time, three of them are yours!

		The Original Barnstar
		The fine work has lead me to award Qwyrxian with this barnstar.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		The hard work of yours relating to demonstrating anti-vandalism with some assistance gives you this barnstar.

		The Special Barnstar
		Finally, on top of the above, this special barnstar awards you for your upgrade to administrative status. CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 07:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:

You have my appreciation for your thanks in my talk page →. --Lvhis (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...and also congratulations on the RfA

		The Purple Barnstar
		As I was perusing Barnstars looking for one to give to a coder, I stumbled upon this one, and thought "Wow, I know just the user to give this to". For enduring a vicious and unethical episode of ugliness in your RfA and triumphing over said ugliness, I give you this. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers to your successful RFA bid. Best wishes, Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good practice

Hey, can you put a small protection template on Wikipedia:New admin school/Protecting/Protect, please? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

^^ <evil cackle>. Congrats, btw. Far more drama than there should have been but, hey, you can block me now. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Template added, unprotected, reprotected, untemplated, etc. The technical part, at least, seems relatively easy. Now for the hard part--actually deciding if something deserves protection. Think I'll re-read the relevant policy and then take a look at WP:RPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want advice on protection, feel free to drop me a line, it's by far my largest area of admin experience, alarmingly! Well done on the adminship too; I think I completely missed your RFA, but from glancing through your talkpage, it looks like it was a doozy! GedUK  13:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

Hello,

I want to file a complaint against Lawrencekhoo, BigK HeX and Dark Charles. They remove sourced material and include poorly sourced material in a blatant effort to damage the integrity of the Austrian School article. They cite a bogus consensus, which doesn't exist. The issue has been bullied through before, as can be seen on the talk page. I want to know how it can be okay to gather a bunch of friends and destroy WP articles simply by reverting a real editor's work enough times that he faces the 3 revert rule. Why is this allowed, even when appeals are made for it t stop? Misessus (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to answer on the article's talk page so that other editor's can see it as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!!

Thank you very much to everyone for your congratulations!!! And if you participated in the RfA but didn't get thankspam from me, my apologies, but thank you for your participation.

Okay, lets get out that checklist:

1. Open RfA  Done
2. Respond to questions  Done
3. Deal with paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama  Done
4. Send thankspam  Done
5. Vandalize main page
6. Block everyone who ever opposed me or failed to see my utter genius
7. Vandalize Navbox so that my name appears across millions of pages

Meh...I'm plum tuckered out after 1-4...I'll have to put the others on my long term to-do list. ps #5-7 are a joke. don't worry, be happy.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done. You were exemplary in the face of unfortunate and unacceptable behaviour by someone who obviously holds a grudge. You'll make a fine admin. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! If you have any questions, or need any help, feel free to ask on my talk! SQL^{Query me!} 06:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

#5 should be Delete main page. =D

Sorry I could not participate, our power was out for over a day and I didn't get back here. CycloneGU (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

James Tod

If you have a mo then please could you give James Tod a once-over and let me know your opinion regarding his viability as a WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone else can produce reliable sources demonstrating that the claims referenced in James Tod are wrong, Tod is definitely not a reliable source. I would fully support the removal of Tod used as a source for anything on WP. What I recommend you do is this: remove Tod when you see it. When you do so, explain on the talk page that Tod is generally considered by modern scholars of India to be unreliable and biased. Then, if someone objects, don't argue it out, take it directly to WP:RSN. Although, before you do, let me know--you'll want to phrase it properly to point out that the objection to Tod is in general, in all cases, that xe is no longer considered reliable enough for scholarly work. At best, he is only reliable when his claims can be verified by something else as corroborating evidence, in which case, we might as well just use the corroborating evidence instead of the questionable source.

P.S.: Assuming that there's nothing major missing, that article looks awfully close to Good Article status. I'm not saying I've checked it in perfect detail, but it seems like something you could probably promote relatively easily. The easiest thing to do is submit it for WP:Peer review first, see what they say, fix it, and then go to GA. That kind of work might be a nice change from arguing all day. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion regarding RS. The issue regarding GA is there is a citation outstanding and, more important, I worry that it is over-reliant on one source (Freitag). There are not many sources for him and most of those that do exist merely repeat the same Victorian line (plagiarism was rife then, too!). I'll do a bit more digging just in case and then probably take up that peer review suggestion. It can do no harm. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed Tod from Rajput clans (an article I gave fair warning on was due for a scrubbing about 3 weeks ago). Before I go any further on the article, I'm going to wait at least a few days and see if that removal "sticks". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh! You have just hit the big red button! Clearly, there is no messing around with you, trying it out on some less heavily dependent articles first. I realise that you have been experiencing bad situations where you live, and drama at RfA, but do you have a death wish or what? - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I have to earn my $20K per month somehow (my backer pays extra for admins). (Seriously, TPS, it's a joke, I'm not getting paid to edit Wikipedia. If I was, I promise you, I'd do a much better and less obvious job of it). My thinking on hitting that article is 1) I already gave fair warning that people needed the sources (although I first said Tod was okay, but its clear that its not), 2) if there's a challenge there, it's actually useful, because then we can go to WP:RSN immediately and hopefully just solve the problem in a flash. I heard that sometimes being bold has benefits. Oh, speaking of inviting death threats, it's going to get worse: the way I see that article right now, nearly nothing is sourced. There's a strong chance that I'll be cutting it down to a stub...possibly even just a redirect. I mean, if we can't list all of the individual clans, because we don't have any verifiable info, why do we actually need a separate article from Rajput itself? I expect, though, that once people start noticing, I'll never get that far. And, to be honest, I'd much rather not--if someone can produce good, useful, well cited text, then we definitely should have the article. Heck, if someone can produce badly written, vaguely useful text, as long as there's a good citation, I'll do the work of shaping it into a functional, readable article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the strategy. FWIW, Drmies has checked James Tod and concurs, as I rather think does ErrantX. You get extra, eh? My backer is Prince, so does that make yours King? And, if so, did Tod list him? - Sitush (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The existence of this is a frustrating example of the primary source policy interfering with the wikiwork of someone with several history degrees ! - Sitush (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!

Well done, Admin =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion

Greetings. There is a discussion in Talk:Kamma_(caste). Please can you give your response there. thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ready for your First Big Challenge as an Admin.?

My name somehow was brought up in a discussion, and while that isn't the issue, MakeSense64 has asked for administrative input. CycloneGU (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any specific request for admin help. People who watch WP:COIN include both admins and non-admins, so I'm sure that others will respond. While MakeSense64's comments about you aren't particularly fair, I don't think they rise even to mild incivility (had xe accused you of a COI, that would be a problem). I have a limited familiarity with COI, and think that it would probably be better for regular editors of that board to comment. If MakeSense64 does make comments about you or anyone else there that seem to be incivil, let me know, and I'll look again, but I think that I'm not the right person for the job. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, as I noted, the comments about me weren't what I was commenting about. I saw that he had requested administrative input other than Atama on the COI case (the only one responding so far, and even recently), and knowing you had just been given the bucket you came to mind first. CycloneGU (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List articles: hospitals and schools in India, etc.

Hello, my friend. How are all the gnarly powers working out? :)

I didn't mean to be pushy with my reply on the India etc. list articles thread. I'm just working on a different tack.

I actually intend on pruning a list, announcing it on the thread, to shift the onus. If nobody barks, I will continue.

Heck, if a list were newly-created, additions would be challenged. Somehow, the fact that a zillion IPs have dumped dubious content into them is giving the illusion of some sort of worth. I just don't see it. There has to be some measure of notability in the items. That shouldn't need consensus on each talk. If List of structures in London didn't have "notable" in the lead, it wouldn't mean that a tin shack on Buggersworth Rd. should be allowed.

Anyway, you are welcome to object. You know I respect you a great deal, and any objections you come up with can only bring the community closer to the right decision. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that, if you wander around through Category:List of hospitals by country, you'll see that the vast majority of them have redlinked and unlinked items. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. However, if we take a look even at Category:Lists of hospitals in the United States (which subdivides into categories by state), you'll see that almost all of those also have redlinked entries; given the overall Western/US-centric bias of WP, we can assume that these lists are better watched and maintained, and even they aren't all (or even mostly) bluelinked. I'm concerned about the appearance that we're suddenly holding India to a higher standard than we hold all of these other lists. It's true that in the process of growing this toward a featured list quality, everything would eventually need to be sourced. But that seems to be over-reaching a bit. Yes, unverified challenge-able info may be removed from articles at any time...but we just want to make sure we're treading carefully and distinguishing between what is really "challenge-able" and what is just currently un-verified. Some editors, for instance, would argue that you should just AGF, through up "cn" tags on everything, and then wait for some magical future date where it's all perfect (my tone probably indicates that I don't agree with this position). At a minimum, though, I would give a good faith "warning" on the article talk page (something like "Hey, in 1 week, I'm stripping everything unsourced out of this article"). 99% odds that no one will respond, but at least there's been a little warning. If you start taking stuff out, I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I hate for you to face sudden criticism unnecessarily. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See, this is why they made you admin. :) Good points. I'll give this one some time. See if other views come in. Mull it over. Thanks for taking the time. I know you're busy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

TV station articles - Another incommunicative editor

Sorry to overload you. Could you please advise on this IP before I act?

• 75.74.248.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

See his talk page. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Your call here. To me, this is different than the slogans, because this information is verified automatically by anyone in the areas of those stations turning on their cable box and turning to the right channel. This to me falls under the category of things that don't need to be sourced, because they're "common knowledge" to anyone in the area. Now, if we had some reason to believe this information is wrong, then I'd immediately rollback all of it (let me know, I can do it in a single step, I believe) as vandalism (intentionally inserting false info). With the slogans, we're talking about things that were (allegedly) broadcast 5-50 years ago for some of those slogans, so there's no immediate way to verify them. I tried to do a quick search for one of the stations, but couldn't find anything; I'll try to check more later. If we can confirm them, I have no problem leaving them unsourced (like if what we find doesn't meet RS); if we can't find anything, we could take them out; if we confirm they are malicious/false, then it's 100% rollback and a block.

One minor note: I can totally imagine an IP editor completely ignoring the big orange bar. "Why would I have messages? Must be for someone else".

Oh, if this editor ever puts a single non-localized slogan, then we'll roll them all back as well since we don't trust that editor at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've got rollback too, but wouldn't dare use it in this case. Our other TV vandal is a special case.

As for the orange bar and the "Why would I have messages? Must be for someone else".....hmmmm...maybe. Such orange bars often lead to garbage links on the net, but this guy must know this is a Wikipedia thing. It's unlikely that he hasn't clicked it and seen the messages.

By the way, this sort of uncommunicative editor making zillions of dubious edits is not uncommon. That IP is just as notorious as our black sandbox friend. Very similar in scale, M.O., and IP and sock hopping, but a different person.

Anyway, I will keep an eye on the articles and see if others who have local knowledge revert. That will tell us if the edits are good. Thanks again for the input. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the information and quick reply. I need the copy of the article for my personal use. I don't want to misuse the wikipedia storage space. I will store it as a text file on my computer and other storing devices. Please understand that I spent some time on this article. I may use the script for other uses. Who knows the book becomes notable by your standards some day and then I will not need to waste time to assort all the information once again. So it is my most humble request that a copy of the article may please be made available to me.

I would be most happy if a relevant warning posted on the article before deletion. I think there was no urgency as such to delete this article without any warning. My protest is for that and undue allegations imposed by the editor.

--Anand Khare 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The book was published by a vanity press, a print-on-demand house. There were no claims of notability, or of significance or importance; this made the article equivalent to promotional material, advertising, and/or spam. I have no problem with you providing the contributor with a copy of the content by e-mail (although he's not allowed to keep it in userspace). Your understanding that books must go through PROD or AFD is incorrect. As for your comment that the standard rule is that "2 eyes have to hit every article" -- well, I have the impulse to make a joke about how the 2 eyes in question were my left eye and my right eye. Seriously, though, that only applies if there's any remotely plausible argument to be made. Anything else is process masturbation. DS (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New-ish user causing problems

You're good with mentoring/advice etc. If you have the time then QuickEditor could probably do with some, in particular for mis-use of templates and guidance regarding the five pillars. I have tried and have been rebuffed. I think it is mostly just bumptiousness but others may see things differently. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Seen your post. Thank you for that. You'll gather that there have been some more issues since the above, and it was pointless me trying to engage as they have no goodwill in respect of me, per their rebuff of my earlier offer. I deleted a wikilove they posted on SudoGhost's talk page not long ago as that definitely was beyond the pale. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to your comment to DGG

I found that 'article' by patrolling userspace. You would be horrified by how much garbage gets dumped there. Sometimes people try to sneak stuff past article patrol that way, by creating it in userspace and then moving it to articlespace. I don't let that happen unless it's a valid article.

Use your newly-granted admin privileges to read that deleted content. It is horrible, and there is nothing that asserts any notability, significance, importance, value, merit, or worth. All we can say is that it exists, and here is a careful list of its contents.

My cat's litter box exists, and I could provide a careful list of its contents.

We do not bite the newcomers, but neither do we let them get away with absolutely anything they want. This user's intent was to use Wikipedia to promote the book which he wrote. The book he had to pay a company to print.

For a book to have been printed by a vanity press is not an absolute indicator that the book does not belong on Wikipedia. But it's very nearly absolute.

You are free to disagree with any of my deletions, and to restore them, on the merits of their content. You are not free to restore them solely on the grounds that you feel I did not properly flex my fingers when flushing the wiki-toilet. DS (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no, of the dozen or so that I looked at, the deletions all looked correct. I was, in fact, strictly concerned with process, and with that process's effect on the newish editors who create these articles. I always worry that a new user who creates a promotional piece isn't doing so out of malice, simply ignorance of what Wikipedia is for (since even many of our existing articles are borderline promotional). Further, I think that, in at least a small percentage of the cases, these editors can be taught to become useful Wikipedia editors. But if we don't offer guidance, or at least a semblance of "process wonkery", they definitely won't. I'm still "new" and idealist though--that will likely wear off in time.

My other concern was simply related to grilling I took in my RfA related to CSD. Several people (including DGG) rightly opposed because I didn't properly answer a question about CSD #A7--basically, a nearly identical case to the vanity book--that is, they argued that even an article likely to be deleted via other processes cannot be speedily deleted unless it falls squarely within a CSD category. Thus, seeing your practice surprised me, and so I sincerely inquired to DGG whether or not your practice was acceptable (knowing that the "rules" don't always match "practice"). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reaper

Reaper has managed to block himself? D'oh! - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent revert at Chandigarh

I very nearly reverted that which you did here a few hours ago. At best, it seemed to achieve nothing. Do you have any idea what the contributor may have been trying to achieve? I have seen this sort of edit before and it baffles me. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If the user page is accurate, xe's only 13. Which, explains nearly any odd behavior, ne? The one concern when I see edits like that is that the person is trying to get 10 edits in to get autoconfirmed, but the rate isn't very high, so that's not likely the case here. I'll keep monitoring, though--I put a welcome message on xyr page and asked if there was a reason for the edits, so maybe they can explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Chandigarh Capital Region - ghosts of problems past

As you probably noticed by now, Chandigarh Capital Region now redirects to Chandigarh. I'm not sure about the way it was done, or that there was "broad consensus". Plus, it leaves behind a talk page.

Anyway, it also leaves the following illegitimate items:

• Parks and gardens in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Knowledge industry in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Transportation in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Economy of Chandigarh Capital Region

• Template:Chandigarh Capital Region
• [ [Category:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh Capital Region] ]

And maybe more.

I know you're busy, so you advise and I'll do the legwork.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

While I didn't agree with the redirect of CCR, I was in the minority, so I didn't object. I prolly should add a section to Chandigarh with the relevant info. I say, just prod all of the mainspace articles with a note saying there's no need for a redirect (no one is going to type those titles into the search box) because consensus decided that even the "main" top isn't necessary. Once those are gone, the template and cat are easily eliminated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I prodded the following, citing "Article dependent on "Chandigarh Capital Region" being a defined area. It isn't. Per discussion, Chandigarh Capital Region is no longer an article, and now redirects to Chandigarh."

• Parks and gardens in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Knowledge industry in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Transportation in Chandigarh Capital Region
• Economy of Chandigarh Capital Region

I didn't quite understand note of explanation you recommended. Is what I wrote okay?

I would like to paste the talk from CCR into Chandigarh talk. Subpage? Section? Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your prod note is great. We don't, as far as I know, when redirecting an article, do anything with that article's talk page, as there's no real need to, and because at some point someone might want to recreate the CCR article, so they should be able to see why the redirect was made. That is, redirected articles usually retain their talk pages, though deleted articles have the talk page deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"We don't...do anything with that article's talk page": I think you're right. I was probably thinking of merge. I'll keep an eye on the 4 prods. After they (hopefully) slip into oblivion, I will prod the template and cat, and then dig for last remnants. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

AN re: Yogesh, TT, MangoWong

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. You are not named: this is just so you know, given your involvement. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - moved from WP:AN per request of Fowler&fowler. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Response

Qwyrxian: When you add new sections to article talk pages, please always add them at the bottom of the talk pages. This keeps them in a consistent order and makes it easier for new editors to know which discussions are current.

Hi again. Thanks. I didn't know.

Qwyrxian: Also, as a side note, if you're proposing major changes to articles, you might want to remove the "Retired" banned from the top of this page :). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed. but I'm really not active. I get reverted too much.

Re Declined Speedy Deletion nom

Augh... I'm scared of AfD. --Σ ^talk_contribs 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did explain on the article's talk page that, if the article isn't improved, it's going to be deleted sooner or later. I'll added to my list of things to follow up on, and, assuming I remember, if there's no improvement in a week or so I'll try to WP:BEFORE it and then, if I find nothing, AfD it myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the concern and other helps. Pls fix the issue of mandatory warning before deletion also. It will help new users.I wonder if the language of Dragonfly ,the xe, is in accordance with the high standards set by wikipedia.

--Anand Khare 06:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandkharebsnl (talk • contribs)

Rajput cleanup

Greetings, you indeed have a brass pair to take on Rajput issues! I get enough headache doing Deccan castes, but I'm tempted to join in to help you out. Among other things, I've been itching to tackle Rajput varna issues; as latecomers to the Vedic system (and given that legendarily the "true Kshatriyas" were all killed off) their Kshatriyahood was a gray process, as opposed to milleniae of history. Not at all disputing their being dang tough fighters, just saying it's important to note that their legend has a lot of political history to it.

On a related note: I see you removed the Tod list from Rajput clans. Those lists are horrid honeypots, so good call there. I debated suggesting that at least some mention of "Tod said XYZ but he's unreliable" would still be valuable somewhere, but no strong opinion. You aren't planning to delete my scanned list at 36 royal races, are you? I'd be happy to have whatever data showing Tod's unreliable, but historiographically the list is significant as a British attempt to sort this stuff out, and people keep yammering about "the list" to this day, so I'd say there's value to it being there... in a tamper-proof .jpg form. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, see I have the great benefit of not actually even knowing the difference between a Rajput and a Kamma. All I know is how to tell when information is validly sourced or not, and to recognize when information can remain in an article unsourced and when it needs sources.

Sitush (I know you're watching, I can see you!), does Freitag have anything to say on the 36 royal races list (it sounded like you've read the whole Freitag). Some more analysis of the quality of the list would be good. Also, MV, one thing that would be a good addition to that article is if you discuss how the list has been used "historiographically", or even by groups to promote their own interests. That is, not just including criticism (well-deserved, apparently), but also including comments about the uses this list has been put to. Like, if some group relied on this list to make a big political case, and we can describe that, then the reader can better understand why this list is important historically even though its well known to be wrong. It's kind of like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion--everyone who's got half a bit of literary/analytical sense knows its balderdash, but its a critically important document simply because so many people (who don't have any sense) do treat it as viable "history". Note that I'm not comparing the content or purposes of the two docs; merely stating that the way they are used despite inaccuracies is similar, although to a different degree. As for deleting the article, that would seem wrong to me; we wouldn't ever delete, say, Almagest, despite the fact that the geocentric model that Ptolemy presents is clearly wrong. As long as the list itself is notable, it should stay. I am going to make a teensy-weensy formatting change, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually came here to thank you for the ANI issue that you have recently raised, honest! I am far too involved to start discussions such as that and, of course, I am the primary target of that group of people.

I do not recall that Freitag examines the 36 RR (is that an extension of 3RR that I am not aware of?) in detail but it all falls under the "Tod was using old Indian texts" banner because Tod's list was not really his own. I do think that there is wriggle room for including something, somewhere about the list and that if done correctly then this could head off any future long-winded discussions at the pass. Fundamentally, it would just be linking to James Tod and repeating some content from that article in a concise manner. However, hold off on that for a couple of days because I have a 35 page critique of Tod to read that has just come to me via WP:RX. I want to go through this one thoroughly because anyone with a name like Norbert Peabody deserves my full and complete attention (plus, he went to my university & so is bound to be correct. Ahem.) - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:36RR is a variation usable only by very large cabals (12 or more editors), clearly necessitating off-wiki coordination. Since that many reverts isn't really useful except when fighting another cabal, it's pretty rare in practice. As for Tod, thanks for the info; if you find something smashing in the source, everything can always change. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you're welcome on the ANI...I was worried for a few hours that it wasn't going to go anywhere, which would have been very troublesome, since I see no question at all that that was a monumental PA....had that not been acted on, I can't imagine that we'd ever have any chance of establishing civility. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no mention of the 36RR in Peabody's article (referred to above). You may not be aware but another sock of Shannon has been nuked today, using the email system to promote that thing. It looks like Mango may get away with the latest ANI report: everyone seems to be concerned about Thisthat but unaware/disinterested in Mango's activities. Oh, well, I'll just have to put up with yet more pointless wikilawyering from them. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine on Peabody, it just means there isn't something useful to add to Rajput clans. I think it would be great to have a quote that says, "While Tod is generally considered to be, well, just a tad bit clumsy and self-interested, a lot of people liked to quote his list, probably because it benefits them." Or, you know, something like that but neutral. MW is the most sophisticated of the bunch; luckily, xe also seems to be one of the most extreme POV-wise, which makes it easier to proceed. You've done the right thing on Talk:Kurmi by showing that MW has a clear stance, and one that doesn't appear to match the emerging consensus, which is fine (I don't match consensus all of the time). Ultimately though, if xe sees xyrself as victim of a grand conspiracy run by the likes of you and MV, xe'll either give up in exasperation or push too far (on or off wiki). It may take a long time, but it is inevitable ("Mr. Anderson"). What's the Shannon SPI link? I don't think I was involved in that one directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that, as MV says, we have to find a way to finesse a sentence or two about the list, but how to do that is problematic at the moment. I have nearly finished Tod (barring a PhD thesis at Columbia University that I cannot get hold of due to lack of username/password) & so will spend a bit of time digging for something useful on the 36RR.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488 is the link. I notified Boing of an email received off-wiki yesterday & passed to me a few hours ago by a very kind Afghan gent with whom I have had no dealings at all previously. He smelled something fishy & told MV, so I contacted & asked for a copy. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

End game at Kurmi

I think that we may have reached the end of the game with regard to mentioning shudra in the article etc. I know that you cannot step in and pronounce that consensus has been reached because you are involved, but hopefully someone does soon. Then I can add it to the FAQ and we can all move on to the next MW/YK/TT battleground. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't made hardly any comments on caste talk pages recently--i've just barely been keeping up with high priority stuff. I'll try to check in soon. One quick thought--be very wary of making any move while YK is blocked, as it could easily be seen as trying to take advantage of xyr absence, even though it' not. Unless that wasn't a page xe was working on--I haven't kept track of who's at which page. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. I think it is mainly MW & TT on that article but will check. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MW & weasel

MW has been telling a fairly new editor that the word "claim" is always a weasel word, including in situation where an article says that "X claim to be^cite" or "Anthropologists Y claims A^cite ... but Z thinks B^cite". I would imagine that this is gearing up to the "claim kshatriya" statement, although at present it is at Talk:Yadav.

Yes, I know we could always change "claim" for "say"/"says" etc, but sometimes it is just about flow, not repeating the same word umpteen times in a paragraph or, well, all sorts of things.

I have tried to correct him, pointing out that WP:MOS (which he cited as a policy]] is in fact a guideline and that there are genuine uses for the word that are not weasling. The reason for trying to correct was because I feel that it could lead a new-ish contributor down a very awkward and potentially destructive road, where all statements containing the word "claim" are challenged, removed etc.

MW, inevitably perhaps, insists that they're correct. What is your take on WP;Weasel ? I have no intention of wasting my time replying further to MW in the thread but I might want to drop a note on the newbie's page at some point in the next few weeks if a pattern of misunderstanding should emerge along the lines of challenging all uses of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken varying positions on it. I think the key, as always is too see what it actually says. First, as you point out, it's a guideline, not a policy, though I personally don't like distinguishing between the two (you can get blocked for violating an essay, and you can get away with violating policies, so, it's all about the "mood" of the audience). Second, I look to the actual guideline, and this one explicitly tells us not to apply it religiously: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Now, if I had to err on one side or the other, I'd rather err on the side of not using the words whenever possible, especially if I know I have a personal opinion about the matter (which I always do). In this particular case, I actually agree with MW (as I mentioned on the talk page), because it creates an unfair, two-tiered setting: "They claim this about themselves, but (implication) anybody who's not so self-biased knows that..." Of course, as I pointed out, we can't break NPOV or V by going the other way--that is, we can't make it look like a fact that some of the clans were Kshatriya. On the other hand, you point out a good example of when "claim" would be valid...as in "He claimed that he didn't kill her, but he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison." Using "said" there instead of claim would seem unnatural, and not necessary per NPOV, to me.

I wouldn't worry about the other editor--there's no way that my or your advice is going to come off well. We were all told things early on in our editing that we then repeated and were later told out wasn't actually universally true (at least, I assume we've all had that experience...maybe it's just me). Eventually, someone will "correct" the other editor, and life will move on. Or they'll have a long, protracted fight about it...but life will still, eventually, move on. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

I saw the first two sentences of this post [1] and I get the impression that you have described yourself as a very sad victim of my tremendously mean-spirited baiting. It will be nice if you can provide some details of the actual baiting process... like how you've been baited into ignoring other people's constructive ideas/posts (infuriating other parties in the process), calling people "allegedly smart", branding light-hearted comics as racist, or writing wonderful rants about your left-leaning political worldview. I will read the rest of the post later. Meanwhile, here's a little something to lighten up the mood [2]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. Doing so would, in fact, be part of what benefits you by distracting me and setting me off. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You would like to make bad faith accusations without the need for them to be subjected to discussion and scrutiny. I suspected as much. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maryphillips1952

Hi - pretty sure you're offline at the moment so I've taken the liberty of unblocking the above editor. It looks like it was all a bit of a mix up anyway and it didn't seem fair to make her wait. However, if you want to come to my talk page and throw stuff, please do (and accept my apologies for butting in!). EyeSerene^talk 16:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sondra Locke's date of birth

Sondra Locke was born in 1944. Erikeltic continues to deny all reliable sources by reverting my edits and inserting an incorrect 1947 birthdate for Sondra Locke. See below for proof that Locke was born in 1944.

On 28 May 2011, actress-director Sondra Locke turned 67 according to Yahoo! News [3], ABC News [4], the Associated Press [5][6], Leigh Valley News [7], and The Boston Globe [8]; this directly correlates to her being born on 28 May 1944. Her birthdate is 28 May 1944 according to MSN movies [9], the Internet Movie Database [10], and the Notable Names Database [11]. Many printed publications erroneously list her birth year as 1947. The Middle Tennessee State University yearbook from 1963 has a photo of her [12] appearing in a production of Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. If born in 1947, this would make Locke a 16-year-old university student, an unlikely scenario. Locke's age is stated as 45 in this 1989 People magazine article [13], correlating to a 1944 birth year. As of August 2011, Locke is 67 years old according to public records [14][15], correlating to her being born in 1944.

Please prevent Erikeltic from further abusing Locke's wikipedia page. Her correct birth year should be on that page, and the correct year is 1944. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page. If you read what I wrote, you'd see that part of what you say is valuable (the "age by subtraction"), and part is useless (her yearbook, imdb, public records). Please keep this discussion on that page. I'm guessing we're probably going to have to take this to a noticeboard eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply. The reason I brought the issue over to your talk page, is because Erikeltic was deleting my responses (which contained proof for my argument) without any merit. There shouldn't even be an issue, as you can see I have provided the most reliable sources. Erikeltic continues to cite an unathorized biography of Locke's former boyfriend Clint Eastwood (published back in 1999), and one website as a source. Erikeltic needs to be prevented from making further incorrect editions to Ms. Locke's page. This needs to be taken to the noticeboard. Erikeltic is abusing his power on wikipedia. Administrators need to be informed of this issue. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and so is Nyff. I don't think Erikeltic was aware that WP:OR provides a specific exception allowing the calculation of birthdays. He may well change his opinion after reading that. Please be patient--this doesn't need to be solved instantly. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have been trying to resolve this for nearly two weeks and Erikeltic continues to ignore all of the reliable sources I have provided, even removing them from the talk page. Erikeltic rejected MSN movies [16] as a source, without any explanation. PlaceboComp8705 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

International Youth Fellowship

In regards to your section blanking on International Youth Fellowship with the reason that blogs and forums are not accepted as sources: Does this warrant a complete section blanking? If so, then the entire article needs to be deleted because nearly all references are directly or indirectly self-produced by the organisation. Furthermore, the organisation uses the article as a advertising and promotion board. And lastly, the article lacks a neutral point of view as is it written as a self-adulation by the organisation itself. If blogs and forums are not acceptable sources, then how can the article have a neutral point of view? Of course, the criticism comes from insiders who have no sources that are reliable in the sense of Wikipedia. But that does not make the criticism invalid. Please either allow the criticism to be there, or delete the entire article as it has no encyclopedic content as lacks a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BornAgainKS (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And, in fact, you'll see that I have blanked much of the article :). When we say an article has to be neutral, that doesn't mean that we have to invent things to say on both sides of the story. Rather, the article must state factually what is true about the subject, and, when there are multiple opinions about the subject expressed in reliable sources we must report on all sides with deference to the due weight of those opinions. If all reliable sources speak positively about a subject, then that's the opinions that we will source and discuss. For example, if I (personally) write a blog about how terrible, evil, and disgusting Mother Theresa was, just because I'm the only negative voice, that wouldn't mean that you would add my blog to the article about her. That's the whole point: blogs are just the opinion of a few people, and there is no certainty that the people who wrote the blog or commented in the forum checked their facts, reported honestly, etc. However, you will note that I have tagged the article as possible non-notable. I'll bring this up on the talk page now. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The criticism is certainly not an invention of mine. I am not even the author of the blog that was cited as a reference. And if it was true what you have stated, links 1, 2 and 6 in the references should all be removed because these are created by the organisation and people within it, in particular the youtube link. As you said: Any organisation can set up a web page. So how come the organisation's own web page and youtube channel is a reliable source when at the same time a blog with criticism is not?

The detailed answer is found at WP:SPS. The basic idea is that self-published sources are reliable for some info, and not for others. Like if I say, "Company X's mission statement is 'Blah Blah blahhh!'", I can use the company's website as a source for what their motto is. And I can use their website for info like the founding/leading members, their general activities, etc. I can't use it for info about exactly how big they are (income, influence, etc.), I can't use it for their opinions, and I can't use it for anything demonstrably controversial. In other words, we can presume an organization is telling the truth when they say "Our president is Jane Smith", but we can't presume they're telling the truth when they say, "We're the biggest and most famous youth organization in the world." As for the youtube channel, it probably isn't a reliable source (for several reasons). But I can't check youtube while I'm at work; I'll have to try to remember to look at it at home. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, speaking of speaking the truth: The IYF was founded to disguise the parent organisation Good News Mission, which is an evangelical cult. The IYF is a front-organisation to reach out to youth. Its true mission is to entice youths in GNM and make them followers. What you see on their web sites may not necessarily be the full truth. Of course, you won't find a "reliable" source (in the sense of Wikipedia) that backs this claim (other than the reports of insiders, based upon which was the criticism section). Or, one could set up an Anti-GNM web site which would then be citable? But what's the difference to a blog then? I still believe that is should be a content of the article that the true goal of the organisation differs to what they claim their goal is. If an organisation can lie about itself so blatantly in Wikipedia simply because Wikipedia does not accept blogs will of criticism as source, then the entire article should be deleted. BornAgainKS (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, such an Anti-GNM source would not be acceptable. And, again, I don't think you understood what I was saying above. Wikipedia accepts organizations self-published claims about things that aren't really disputable. Now, I understand, there's a weird borderline issue here: the group claims to be a generic religious youth organization, while you/blogs claim it's actually a recruiting ground for a cult. Well...all I can say is that all we can do is strip the article down to the bare minimum (stub it, if necessary) stating only those things that are absolutely certain. If this group really is a cult, at some point, someone somewhere will publish about it in reliable sources. But if we can't even verify from independent sources that people find this group notable, then we may well want to consider asking the article to be deleted. The best thing you could do right now to help would be to search for reliable sources about the group, no matter what those sources say. Then we can figure out what the article should say. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. At the moment, I have no reliable sources to back my claim, other than my own experience, my conscience and the experience of others jotted down in blogs. If someone publishes about it in a reliable source, how reliable and notable must that be? There is some criticism on the internet, for example here, here, here, but no "hardcopy" criticism in the form of a notable author writing a notable assay in a notable newspaper or notable book. Also, the blog that I cited had links to other pages writing about this cult, amongst which was a link to this page in which Dick York responded to a letter about concerns about Good News Mission. The irony is that Ock-Soo Park, the head pastor of Good News Mission, claims to have been trained by Dick York and Kays Glass in the late 1960s. Dick York is/was a teacher in the Shield of Faith Mission and is/was quite influential, so criticism based in him should have some weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BornAgainKS (talk • contribs) 06:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of those will work. The exact definitions are found in the reliable sources guidelines, but the basic idea is that it needs to be something (publisher, magazine, journal, newspaper, etc.) that has an editorial board that reliably checks facts and confirms the integrity of the info. About the only time that blogs count is when they are the subjects own blog (like for an article about a person, and then the restrictions I talked about above come into play), or when the author is already a known expert in the field (i.e., a respected academic who has studied religions who also writes an online column, whether on xyr own site or another). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this case I have nothing to say. You will not find any theologist waste a minute with this cult. Dick York is quite a capacity, but he has not "studied religions". Rather, he practices it. It seems that if Wikipedia gives weight to someone's voice depending on that person's notability, there is little the Internet community can do about cults abusing Wikipedia for their advertising, other than stripping the article to its bare minimum.