User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

TT at ANI again

Someone's written English appears to have improved dramatically in one or two responses at ANI & on talk pages today. Very odd. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

S can you clearly present your doubts?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

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. The thread is Discussion. Thank you.Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I inteded it to be a TB message, these "new" twinkle additions have me crazy... sorry if it sounded formal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I stopped making CSD on your ToSouk page but you must have references in order to have its guidelines. Thank you.--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Katirghe, either you didn't read, or didn't understand my message. I'm not the author of the ToSouk page. I'm an administrator, and I was reviewing your edits. I'm not asking you to change the ToSouk page tag--I'm asking you to stop tagging articles for deletion until you can start doing so correctly. You have to not tag articles so fast and you have to use the proper CSD rationale. I'm very concerned that you're simply trying to move as fast as possible through either Recent Changes or New Pages, tagging as many as you can. Your improper speedy deletion tagging is harmful to the encyclopedia. I want to talk with you about how you can get better at that, and I want you to voluntarily stop tagging pages for deletion while we have that talk. If you do not agree to a voluntary stop, I may request the input of other editors and administrators to see if you should be blocked, because I believe tha your actions are doing real harm to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do understand what you're saying. I know what mistakes I did wrong such as tagging really fast, I will try to stop it and will do it correctly, if I can do it well and carefully. If I don't I will stop tagging articles and do something else. Thank you for you notice and understanding this statement, I will voluntarily stop tagging pages for deletion unless if I do it correctly for example if the article is something unremarkable or nonesense. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you ever have any questions, please ask me at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding article yadav

You have mentioned scholars have disputed the yadav claim from chandravanshi khastriyas. The scholars are brahmin scholars. In india every caste wants to pull down the other caste. Yadavs are chandravanshi khastriyas and there hundreds of inscriptions. Just think with common sense practically and stop being a book worm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

article should be filled with common sense

please use common sense. Majority of Indians agree that yadavs are chandravanshis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither I nor Wikipedia care what the majority of anyone believes. A majority of Christian believe that Jesus was real, and was really the son of Jehovah. Should we write that in our articles? A large number of people in the US think global warming is not caused by human activity, is that what we should say? Common sense has no place on Wikipedia. Get reliable sources, period. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 06:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Well, yeah, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Hi, the "Controversy" section already existed before the current dispute began... so the fair thing to do would be to revert to this revision. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 DoneQwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

anti-indian

now i am aware that you are not indian and thats why you say who is GH ojha hahahaha, try searching jason freiteg on google books not more than 2 pages will show his correct name and then search the legendary historian who was executed gaurishankar ojha or gaurishankar hirachand ojha , second class historian like Romilla Thapar criticizes him alongside RC majumdar, rk mookerji, rg bhandarkar(really that thapar is insane) also you dont know the meaning of mahapayodhya.115.241.247.223 (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I don't know who Ojha is. I said that you cannot violate WP:BLP by negatively characterizing people like Freitag without citing a reliable source and attributing the claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

...I edit conflicted with you protecting Sitush's talk page; it was not my intention. Feel free to revert my edit. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawala scandal, explaining my revert of your revert

I reverted your revert of my edits to Hawala scandal. I've fixed the dead links I added (you can add {{404}} to a link if you don't feel like fixing dead links yourself). Primary sources are allowed to be used in articles (the policy is at WP:PRIMARY), and copying within wikipedia is not a copyright violation. See you around. --Banana (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you'll note, WP:PRIMARY specifically includes a link to WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Thus, since the claims are specifically about criminal activities of living people, the primary sources are not acceptable, and I've reverted the edit again. On the copying issue, I misunderstood what you wrote: I thought you were saying you copied the info from an article published by CBI, not from the Wikipedia article on CBI. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something here. The sentences supported with a primary source are:

• In 1991, an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians.

I can't see how BLP could apply to this.

• The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest petition (see Vineet Narain), and yet the court cases of the Hawala scandal eventually all collapsed without convictions.

I don't think saying the scandal did not result in any convictions is covered by BLP. It's an assertion about a political scandal and not really a controversial fact. Either people were convicted or they weren't.

• The Central Bureau of Investigation's role was criticised. In concluding the Vineet Narain case, the Supreme Court of India directed that the Central Vigilance Commission should be given a supervisory role over the CBI.

Nothing to do with individual people.

Which sentences in particular do you object to? Would you be ok if I put the others back in? --Banana (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, when I first read it, I thought that since the point of the article is about living people accused of a scandal, it was just "obvious" that a BLP issue was involved, thus ruling out primary sources. However, after your explanation, I begin to doubt myself. The most "BLP-ish" part (the naming of the accused) is covered by a non-primary RS, so maybe I'm over-reacting. I'm going to go ahead and self-revert to your version (thanks for pulling out the webarchived versions, btw). I may take the issue to WP:BLPN later, because I'm still a little uncomfortable, but I can't quite put it into words yet why I'm uncomfortable. If I do, I'll let you know in case you want to comment. Thanks for being diligent on this; somehow I got it into my head that this was an open and shut case, and your careful analysis made me realize I wasn't looking at it carefully enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Qwyrxian. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Senkaku Islands Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 681 words and 31 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Per our discussion, your evidence length is acceptable to me. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have additionally manage to configure the bot to accept a maximum of 700 words and 50 diffs. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome-sauce! Another editor (Bobthefish2) posted above here on my talk that he wanted closer to 700. Thanks for understanding. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell your buddy

I've been putting up with your buddy Sitush's nonsense on Kurmi (and have been ignoring your inflated assessments of him). If he takes me on, it won't be a cake walk like he's had with others on the caste related pages. Please tell him to hold his horses and think this through calmly. What the heck is he up to? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush watches this page, so I'll just reply here: in all honesty, you're both exhibiting ownership over your own additions to the articles. If I had to hazard a guess, you're doing it for different reasons, but the important thing is this: unlike the majority of other editors on caste pages, at your heart, I think both of you have the best interests of WP in mind, are capable of reading sources in great detail, and have a good broad historical perspective to place the issues in. So that means that when the two of you disagree, you should both be more than willing to take the issue to the talk page and actually discuss it. And note: you will disagree, without a doubt. Just because you're both actually following sources, writing NPOV, etc., certainly doesn't mean that there won't be conflict. But the great thing is that when the two of you disagree, you're capable of having a rational conversation about it, one that will actually get somewhere, without constantly repeating the same things over and over again, dragging each other to ANI, etc. You may, of course need to go through dispute resolution, because smart, rationale people do disagree (heck, that's practically what the whole academic publishing industry is based on). The first step, though, is always discussion.

Some specific points: Sitush, in a situation like this, you're trying to enforce BRD too hard. BRD isn't technically policy or a guideline, although I'll admit that it's often treated like one. When dealing with a competent editor who "get" our policies like Fowler&fowler, don't worry too much about getting the right count on who went first, etc. Of course, its a problem if F&F regularly insists upon xyr version before talking, but I hope that won't actually be the case. BRD also doesn't work so well on articles that aren't at a decent starting point, as it tends to preserve the status quo. BRD can work well as a tool to prevent POV disruption, but when you're dealing with a more serious dispute, it can often be better to "give" on the article and take it to talk (and, if necessary DR) first.

F&F: I am assuming you're an academic (you write like one, and have the knowledge of one); in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you're a published expert in UK and/or Indian history. Nonetheless, as I am sure you're aware, while you're expertise is more than welcome, it doesn't let you automatically trump any discussion. If I may be so bold, don't "take on Sitush as a matador" (to paraphrase your talk message); rather, work together, and accept that sometimes an article won't read exactly like you read. And, on a minor point, Sitush does edit Kshatriya; I think that part of what happened is that the "fights" from biased editors tend to be a little more prevalent on the "lower" castes than on the higher ones, so that fixing any one simple thing tends to take much much longer there, thus why Sitush and MV tend to get bogged down there.

Again, my point is that you're both smart people, and both capable of working through disagreements by discussion rather than edit warring. I have no subject matter knowledge, other than what I've read through WP and doing research (only a little bit) for these pages, but I am happy to help with dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Especially the BRD. My apologies to Fowler&fowler for that. I guess it is rather like the "don't template the regulars" thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Have already made peace offering on Kurmi talk. Q: very well written! Apologies again to Sitush and you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom workshop question

Generalization process using trees

Please give some thought to an open-ended question here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Chandigarh Capital Region: Status update

Further to this old thread, I have just removed all cats and occurrences of Chandigarh Capital Region from articles. There should be no more.

• Category:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh Capital Region has been deleted.

• The CCR navbox (Template:Chandigarh Capital Region) is sitting on death row in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Chandigarh Capital Region Ready for deletion list. The Grim Wikireaper will visit it soon.

• I must have missed the obvious Category:Chandigarh Capital Region. I just nominated it.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that weird? I noticed someone earlier (not you) removing a CCR template from an article and thought to myself that I must revisit to check that there were no more redlinks lying around. I think that the portal may still be an issue but Q has enquired of someone regarding it. - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Which portal?

• Portal:Chandigarh Capital Region is long gone.
• Portal:Chandigarh is still around, but doing no harm. I just noticed occurrence of "Chandigarh Capital Region", somehow in subpages. (Not sure if that's the normal way of putting a portal together.) I will remove the occurrences. I have no objection to leaving Portal:Chandigarh. It gets no visitors, but may be expanded in the coming decades. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Chandigarh. Maybe I have got things confused but I thought we had agreed that it served no useful purpose? Not to worry - it can stay if you think that there is potential. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reason it gets new visitors is that was never properly added to the Portal directory or the india portal. I'll try to do that later today. I also think it serves no particular harm, at least not more than any other under-maintained article. I don't understand why we even need Portals, and as such, for all I know, it's doing what it's supposed to do. Stuff isn't supposed to be deleted because of low quality; rather, tagged and improved. I'm not sure if we can actually tag stuff in portal space, though. I suppose I'll add it to my watch list though, just in case it re-activates, as that might alert us to someone's return....Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Guarddog2

I am not really sure what to make of this. The user makes several statements that we have to basically take at face value:

• I am not responsible for whatever Harmonia put on that editor's talk or description page...People who work for a company like ours (I am not the sole owner of M2, so if someone claimed that I am, this is incorrect) often refer to that company as if it were their own: it is the way we run our business.
• Since the equation of Ubter to my husband is wrong by my husband's statement, then it can equally be said that equating Harmonia to me is wrong by people who actually know what the truth is, not people who are speculating.
• I did look at the Harmonia1 self-description and several details there are incorrect for me: where I live, number of horses, etc. If that text were my creation, I would never have said where I live. I think in general WP has more info about me than I would prefer and more than I would have allowed if I had created the personal pages for me or for my husband.
• I asked my husband and he says this is incorrect, or a misstatement by Ubter or a misread by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Neither my husband nor myself know who Ubter is.

Other parts of Guarddog2's statement deal with the user's dissatisfaction with HW, with the disappointment that the HIH books have been merged, old news with OrangeMike, and how she cannot control the actions of other users on Facebook (note, there are posts like these that to me, resemble canvassing, though it's unclear who from).

But honestly, I really just would like everyone to move on to more important matters. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I just wrote a big long message to her on her talk page. One point I made in there is that I have been to lectures by SF writers, and I recall one of them (probably Harry Turtledove, David Brin, or Raymond Feist) talked about how the "real world" behind shared worlds can be quite vicious; often it gets worked out through the books (killing off one another's characters, trying to dominate the big plot arcs, etc.), but can extend beyond them. Thus, even though her story may or may not be true, it's certainly believable. I agree with you; it's time to move on past any connection with any possible previous incarnations of these people and focus on fixing the current problems. As I told her, I have not looked at those in detail (beyond my blocking of User:UrbanTerrorist), because I wanted to stay focused on the SPI; I still don't really want to get involved now just due to time constraints. But if there are real problems with coordinated promotion going on right now, that should be stopped. I'm going to ask HW to comment either here or on Guarddog2's page, and possibly consider closing the SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and advice

Thank you so much. Your clarification was very helpful. Guarddog2 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique is a concern on the Seinfeld article.

I will admit the Seinfeld article is good at B-Grade. The problem really that my edits at recent times feels consistently reverted because Hearfourmewesique believes the page doesn't need change anymore. Even as something as minor as Susan's death reverted from the bubble boy I thought would work better. I'm not a social expert so I can't think of saying anything but admit he's right and he owns that article I put on his talk page. I'll cool down for a while and hope he can just put in his ideas so everyone is happy rather than "This page is so good, their's no point in editing anymore". That's a bit sarcastic but I can't get the troubled feelings off my chest. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked Hearfourwesique talk page and I'm shocked. I thought he's a good guy but he has a bad rap especially with certain Seinfeld related articles. I don't know what to do but I'll wait... until I feel like over edge when nothing is working. After all, I don't know how long I can keep my cool. Anyway, I'll follow the rules as long as Hearfourwesique doesn't push me over the edge. That's all I'm hoping for. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Seinfeld, the truth is, if I were a regular editor on that article, I probably would have reverted you, too. As Hearfourwesique noticed, it was correct to unlink the one tv show, but the change to the episode is merely a change based on your own preference. However, as I mentioned, the correct thing for you to do is to go to the article talk page and discuss the issue. You may well be able to convince other editors that your preferred episode is better (I don't know much about Seinfeld, but it certainly seems reasonable to me). Your comment on his talk page was totally unacceptable, and shows that you are simply not understanding how wikipedia works. Yes, anyone can edit WIkipedia. Part of that means that when one person makes a change, others may undo that change. Thus, the existence of talk pages to discuss the issue. Why should your new version automatically be accepted? Wikipedia requires collaboration. If you want to be able to make changes and be certain that no one else will ever undo them in the future, then, frankly, you're in the wrong place. Yes, I will can agree that Hearfourwesique has some ownership issues, but, still, except when there is a clear problem with an article that is being corrected (instead of just expressing an editorial preference), the onus is usually on the person wanting to make the change to justify their desire. So please keep editing Wikipedia, including the Seinfeld article. When you make a change and some reverts it, talk about it with them. If they refuse to talk about it, or improperly assert ownership, then get more people involved (you can ask me and I'll help if I can; we also have a full dispute resolution process you can use). Really, I promise, collaboration does make (generally) for better articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You make very good points. I should've discuss with him through talk page though I don't know how. I also made a mistake saying to Hearfourwesique "I lose, you win" scenario. But the only thing that rings true is ownership and collaboration. Also, all I'm doing is using my brain and problem solving and nothing else. If I wanted it for my own personal use, I should be banned for doing so. Anyway, I can't wind back the clock but I do wish in the future it doesn't come to that again. Maybe a banner with useful advice on a daily basis might help but that's just a suggestion. Thanks for the advice. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but it's something I can't get over. Can you smooth things out with him? I'm now thinking I should give up on improving the Seinfeld article no matter how hard I tried now. Yes I don't own the article but that doesn't really mean that reverting my edits is the only solution. Maybe the dispute resolution might help although I really don't know how that works. If this continues and I get banned, that's the price I'm ready to pay if he can't stop reverting my edits because it's not "my article". If only I was shown what was the right way of doing it, then I won't have to worry anymore. Besides, I now already feel Hearfourwesique is protecting the article and that's all I see. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you aren't following the path I told you. When someone reverts your edits, fine--but then go to the talk page and discuss them. I don't see any communication between you and Hearfourwesique except your short conversation with him on the talk page that basically says that you don't know what to do. But I'm telling you what to do: go to the article talk page and discuss it. Please. Stop trying to hold a conversation through edit summaries. Get other editors involved in the conversation. Hearfourwesique is exerting a little bit of ownership, but unless there is conversation on the talk page, it's hard to get anywhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I might've gotten too far but looking back at the GA review on the Seinfeld talk archive, I now figured out why me and Gprince007 failed the criteria to reach A-class or more. As for Hearfourwesique, I should apologise to him. I'll need lessons in better writing and what to do concerning original researching and it's crazy to think every line must come from every website or something like that. I hope you also talk to Hearfourwesique from time to time so that nothing goes out of hand. My english is not perfect but that's what I'll be working on. Just hope things work out for the best. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal on the talk page to work towards GA status is a good idea. It gives everyone a specific goal to work towards, and the formality of the criteria can help a little bit to stop arguments. Small note--you have to get to GA status first before you get A class; it's a little counter-intuitive, but A class (assigned by Wikiprojects) is actually higher than GA. I still recommend that you raise some of the things that recently got reverted on talk (I recall something recently about where to place some controversy about an unaired episode). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting somewhere. I'll have to find a good starting point and maybe if you like put up signs like no original research or something like that. Of course I'll add your recommendations about the reverts as well. Most importantly, at least I'm starting to feel better. We can continue this but I think it's better to do it on the Seinfeld talk page or "the wiki project". Let's talk there instead. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:USERPAGE

While I accept your unofficial statement of WP:USERPAGE policy as authoritative, you may wish to see that edits are made to the actual policy page to reflect (or at least clearly imply) the substance of what you said, which differs fairly dramatically from what is on the policy page.

On the same note, does that mean I am free to place {{User wikipedia/Administrator}} on my userpage? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You could, but I really wouldn't suggest it. People would get uppity about it, you would get upset, and you might say something that would get you blocked. That wouldn't really be in anyone's interest.

Also, Qwyrxian is right that you generally shouldn't be editing other user's userpages. Regardless of what policy may or may not state (arguing from the exact text of a policy that can and will be changed doesn't make much sense anyway), it usually just causes conflict which isn't worth anyone's time. So unless you have a Damn Good Reason^TM, please don't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked through policy, and was surprised that the use of an admin box is not technically forbidden. However, such a template could be legitimately removed by another user, because verifying the accuracy of the statement is easy (the template itself contains a link to verify the status). Furthermore, claiming to have admin user rights when one does not would certainly be considered disruptive, because it implies the ability to take certain actions on Wikipedia that non-admins cannot. Neither of these things is true of the language level box; unless you have administered a widely recognized language test to Claudio, I don't know how you can definitively state what "level" of a language they have (and, even if you had administered such a test, I don't know how you'd match the results to the vaguely defined levels associated with the userboxes). Also, there is nothing disruptive at all about claiming a level of language comprehension beyond one's own ability.

One policy that is relevant on WP:UP is this quotation: "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful." There is no way that either Claudio or the rest of the WP community would consider your edits helpful or expected. In any event, the important thing is to calm down, have a cup of tea, and stop trying to pick fights with another editor. If you have a disagreement about their edits, or believe that they have misunderstood a source or something you wrote, take it to dispute resolution. Don't escalate the matter by trying to degrade their self-perceived claims about their language ability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough comments for the most part, though I find your comments regarding the alleged impossibility of determining definitively enough a user's "advanced ability" (or lack thereof) in a language, and that misrepresenting language abilities is not disruptive, puzzling and difficult to sustain. I had not, however, seen the WP:UP language you cited, and was relying on the nearby main section titled "Ownership and editing of user pages", but did not see the subsection you cited.

On a more general note, it's my opinion that the administrative review procedures you mention are fairly useless to a casual editor, and encourage users who wish to challenge the MSM or rewrite history to edit as disruptively as they like, confident that the system will coddle them and that it will take 5x the man-hours they devote to "editing" just to get a complaint properly filed in the first instance, which complaint will at best probably yield a non-binding (or perhaps merely non-enforceable) admonition to "play nice and stop doing what you're doing". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

deterrence against COI

I'm glad you are someone who can see that there is a problem with under-the-radar COI, having dealt with many such issues myself over the series of many months. I would like to begin drafting some sort of community discussion whether the project should remain purely defensive and reactionary with regards to COI agents who often openly post advice about SEO and how to manage your rep on Wikipedia.

The reluctance of CheckUsers to expose even COI agents with malicious intent towards the project has become rather detrimental to the project. In the very least, CheckUsers should be allowed to investigate a pattern of editing to identify an abuser's real life identity, and if necessary, expose them to the press. In the meanwhile, other forms of deterrence must be considered. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I did see this Elle, I'm just thinking about how to respond--your proposal is so far outside of current WP practices that it deserves some extra pondering. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Über mich

Hello, thank you for your (semi) uninvolved input. I don't agree with your conclusion and I'll continue or appeal the decision, but it was nice to get feedback from folks other than the ten or so editors I usually deal with.--Dark Charles (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I guess for me part of the real key question is, what harm is there being on 1RR? You can still edit the article, you can still discuss in talk space, etc. I mean, really, it's not like any editor should regularly need more than 1RR, except in rare circumstances. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a big deal since Misessus has the same restriction, but it bothers me that I'm being considered disruptive as well.--Dark Charles (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

RFPP

Found your request @ WP:RFPP was "undefined", although I did see the protection need, might be good to specify a reason. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh...that's the second time Twinkle hasn't worked right for me requesting PP...in fact, I'm not sure if it has worked right since I became an admin and Twinkle changed...I'll go fix the request now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

removal dispute

[12:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Qwyrxian: I saw your edit, removal, and reinsertion of old text and reflect that it could only be done by someone who has no knowledge of the subject. I'm admittedly not much of a Wikipedia editor but, every once in a while, I realize that it is precisely the contents and editing of Wikipedia that takes place that reinforces incorrect perceptions and creates a false conventional wisdom. Although there is value in "Immediacy," it should not replace "Reflection." Wikipedia is sufficiently developed that it can become a repository of reflected thought and not just a poster board for whoever has the time, budget, and interest, to promote tabloid understanding. I concur with you that knowledge can be "regional" but when it comes to issues of global concern for the betterment of humanity, I think the discussion should be elevated to whatever relatively neutral tone that can at least further development, discussion, and understanding. The current extraterrestrial property rights discussion on Wikipedia is high school sophomoric and needs upgrading. Your edit is at the same level.

All this said, I don't even know if this message will ever get to you? I send it with good intention and thank you for the probably useful work you do in other areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphonymusic (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition actually did look like the work of someone both knowledgeable in the field and unfamiliar with Wikipedia. The information you added makes sense to me, and even seems to be a likely, logical outcome of future space exploration (supposing it occurs under the same approximate geopolitical circumstances as we have today). The problem is, your conclusion, while logical, is simply that: your conclusion. That is, its a conclusion that you have drawn by looking at the evidence, both positive and negative, surrounding the Outer Space Treaty and its (lack of) signatories. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that we don't allow original research (the actual policy is at WP:OR). The only thing that is supposed to be in Wikipedia is information that is verified by reliable sources. So, as I mentioned in my edit summary, if what you wrote has been discussed in a reliable source (like an academic journal, a reliable magazine, a newspaper article (though, note, not in the opinion section), etc.), then that information could be cited and included. If it has not, well, then Wikipedia isn't the place for the info. As an encyclopedia, our job is merely to summarize what reliable sources have said in a way that presents a clear, unbiased description of information available about the subject. We're not allowed to synthesize or interpret that info, nor to draw our own conclusions about what it "really means". There are plenty of other places in the world and on the internet where you can publish your original thought, but, unfortunately, Wikipedia is not one of them. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 00:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removal dispute

Qwyrxian, I can actually provide the citations for the conclusions but have no idea how this is actually done. I was hoping I could just provide the synthesized conclusion of other people's and organization's conclusions and let the younger world insert the reference citations. All the information can be verified with US government source reports, or the draft of those reports, which are themselves already widely distributed. The material you removed is not original material. On the contrary, it is by now so widely understood that the way you reverted back to the old text highlights the weakness of the Wikipedia process in allowing dumb references and incorrect conclusions to remain posted. I went through the process of enabling myself to make an edit so that I could remove the nonsense that was on the Wikipedia site. Wikipedia needs to also capture reflective thought; the young generation, which I assume includes you, needs to figure out how to capture the thoughts and experience of an older generation. Around this subject, our average age is above 75. We are the engineers and mathematicians who launched the Apollo program and, more recently, the shuttle program. I think we can talk with authority, even if the Wikipedia process can't accept input handwritten in script and communicated using only sentences and paragraphs and the 26 letters of the alphabet. I think the Wikipedia product would improve considerably if they managed to improve the input process.

Good luck fixing the system and hopefully getting all our input before we it becomes impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphonymusic (talk • contribs) 00:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that Wikipedia does need better input processes; supposedly, a new interface is being designed, but as a volunteer charity project, it is sometimes a bit slow. As for your other point, though, in both my opinion and in policy, Wikipedia should not capture reflective thought--it's simply outside of our mission. The problem is that we could never distinguish between "good" reflective thought and "bad" reflective thought. For example, do you think that Wikipedia should include the "reflective thought" from Evangelical Christian writers (well-respected in their fields) who believe the Earth is only 6000 years old in scientific articles on the age of the Earth (we do include the material, but on separate pages). Wikipedia actually explicitly rejected the idea of allowing "authorities" or "experts" to have more say in what goes into articles than any other editor. Another project, called Citizendium, did try to go the route of using experts, but their project has not been nearly as successful.

Regarding the specific info you added, if you can tell me what references you pulled the information from, I can add the citations for you. US government reports are probably fine (although it would depend on exactly which reports), though draft reports are probably not (just like we wouldn't allow the "draft" of a book or newspaper article as a source--by definition, a draft hasn't received final editorial approval). I'm happy to re-add the info so long as it can be verified. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragonbooster4's edits

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Secret of success's talk page.
Message added 09:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Secret of success (Talk) 09:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, was unaware...

I was responding to the request at WP:ANEW and was entirely unaware the issue had been raised in other venues. You have my permission to undo any action I did. Please remove the protection and handle this however you wish. --Jayron32 03:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice you have not unprotected the template. I think that you should do so, given that you made the decision first to not protect it. Comments made at my talk page, since I protected it, have given me reason to believe that multiple parties intend to continue the edit war. However, it is clear that you are correct, you should unprotect the template and you have my support in doing so. --Jayron32 03:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to leave Wikipedia for a little while for real life. No problem on the protection; I didn't realize that the discussion had been opened in another forum simultaneously. I'm going to check in at the template's talk page before unprotecting. While it wasn't quite full protection worthy at that exact moment, if they're going to keep edit warring after I unprotect, there's no reason to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Although a rather new administrator, you deserve a barnstar for your hard work as one! Kind regards, Bryce Wilson | talk 11:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How's the ArbCom preparation coming?

I haven't yet started on it. Do you have any advice on how I should write it? I am still trying to decide on how much of it I should be about the actual tendentious editing that went on regarding the PD article and such (you know... the stuff we used to fight side-by-side against in the past :)). I am hoping to devote about 4/5 of the word count and diffs on that, but I probably would want to wait to see whether or not I need to re-assign the emphasis to some interesting (but less relevant) crusades going on. It's a tough choice. What do you suggest? I've always come to you for advice and this matter wouldn't be an exception. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Slow-coming--trudging through edit histories, archives, etc., is not a fun use of my WP time. I'll probably be ready in a few days. As for advice, I'm sorry, but I have none to give. Any advice I give could very easily be seen as self-serving, and I doubt that your goals and mine are compatible in this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not a very good use of my time either. I am somehow okay with this, though, as I come from a family of writers who enjoy writing things. I am not very sure why our goals are not compatible on this matter, since the primary problem I see is really the circularity of all these time-consuming discussions. Your first-hand experience with the Remin Ribao dispute should indicate that the heart of the matter really rests in tendentious editing, although I am not entirely sure if that's the case for you anymore. But of course, I am not going to try to influence what you decide to write about, because I know you are a very strong-willed and independent-minded person. Rather, I am simply trying to figure out what to write about. You know... I can be pretty indecisive in these kinds of things.

So, I suppose you are having less trouble in choosing your principle subject of interest? Any hints? :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I actually got around to draft my text. It wasn't as pleasant a writing experience as I've anticipated as navigating diffs is a very cumbersome and non-user-friendly experience (Is there a way to automatically set diff-display to 500/page?). Anyhow, I did manage to reach the word and diff limit while falling short on providing substantial evidence on tendentious editing. I felt I could've used another 200 words and 20 diffs. Oh well. So, how's it going on your end? Do you need any help? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting an extra 200 words after I mentioned a desire for it. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I realized when I woke up this morning, before I turned on my computer, that I was indirectly helping you as well. Honestly, I really was just helping myself, but I have no problem if everyone wants to go a little higher. I certainly understand why Arbcom themselves want a limit, especially in larger cases with more participants and more pages, foor practical reasons. Well, I'm still going to keep editing mine, see if I really need to say everything I did. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Aww... I thought you were doing this just for me :(. You could've lied to make me feel happy and important :(. Since our goals are both set towards dealing with tendentious editing and circular arguments, shouldn't you be very happy that it's helping me as well? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that the new soft word-limit is ~720. I didn't notice your draft until now and I feel privileged to be allocated the most text and diffs by far :). Alas, I've already written my draft and I am not going to bother changing anything. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, that was a nice swing, although I honest didn't intend to have others leave the page (it's a page-lock, what do you expect?) :). Anyhow, what's going next in the ArbCom case? I suppose we are going to swing at each other for a while in the "Analysis of Evidence" page and then make some proposals after everyone's tired? Oh and, no hard feelings to you (honest honest), it's all just WP business. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me while I quote: "Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages like "Japan in World War II" and "Nanjing Massacre"" and "Perhaps locking this will allow some people to go off and contribute their time on something like Nanking_Massacre_denial" (emphasis added). The second is ambiguous, the first (perhaps because it's the one you wrote to STSC) makes your intent clear. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I am not so sure. If you look at the definition of "move on" [1], you'd see examples like:

• move on, to approach or attack as a military target: The army is moving on the capital itself.
• to go or cause (someone) to leave somewhere
• to progress; evolve: football has moved on since then
• to put a difficult experience behind one and progress mentally or emotionally

Your interpretation only fits the second definition. And even if we assume that's what I meant, it says nothing about the permanency of departure or the intent to drive others away. I honestly don't understand what I've been doing wrong (namely stopping the revert wars, persistent additions of unhelpful summaries paragraphs/tables/etc, name-ordering changes, etc, etc, which you undoubtedly forgot all about), although you can try to convince the arbitrators that it was done with malicious intent that eventually instigated others to edit-war - It's a long stretch, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually buys this and somehow decides it was all my fault and not anyone else's. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we are approaching the finest hour of our dispute. One thing I notice is that I am almost convinced of my guilt upon reading your proposal. This is a reminder how powerful good rhetorics can be. Despite our officially hostile disposition towards each other, I actually meant this as a compliment... something one wiki-friend would say to another. This is a skill I should pay more attention to in the future and I suppose there are literature that discuss the whole science behind this subject. Since scientists are a very skeptical audience, I usually write in a conservative manner with respect to making claims and assertions, which is obviously not working in my advantage. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, what's your definition of battleground? Since I often misinterpret the various jargons in Wikipedia (such as "vandalism", "requests", "bans/blocks" etc), I think it'd be great if I get some pointers from you before continuing to use those jargons. Do you think I have been using that term correctly? Thanks for correcting my misuse of the word "ban", by the way. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kayastha Shiromani back at it again

Diffs [2], same "remove the entire article and reinsert old version" method. Didn't post in Talk, didn't provide an Edit Summary. I've reverted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thingfromspace left a note on KS's talk page, and I have as well. Might as well give them a chance to get better, or, more likely, prove that they're incapable of doing anything but edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak#Question's talk page. 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi Qwyrxian. This editor, Meryam90, despite being warned more than five times by several editors and two admins including you, is at it again with his/her continuous disruptive edits to Bodyguard and others without even discussing and/or providing edit summaries. I think a block may help this time. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

First, as far as I know, I've never warned that editor (and my edits don't show up anywhere in xyr talk page history). Also, I would argue that your most recent edits to the article were the bad ones--Meryam90 correctly moved negative critiques into the negative critique area, and changed the overall descriptive words to more accurately match the range of reviews available. Meryam did provide edit summaries for 2 of xyr 4 most recent edits, and the other 2 were bascially doing the same things as the first edit. I would actually suggest that you self-revert. The only real question I can see is Meryam's change from one ToI critic to another; xe asserts the other critic is actually the more important one; the two of you will need to work that out on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, some other admin had warned her on your behalf for 3RR. I don't have any idea how you're seeing things. Meryam didn't improve any wordings but removed Gaurav's TOI review and the term "positive". I've already been explaining everything on the talk page since the very beginning. There was an edit request on the talk page to even make it "generally positive" but I made it "mixed to positive" becuase that's what it is. As far as reviews are concerned 2.5 stars out of 5 is mixed, not negative. Scieberking (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if you're right about 2.5 = mixed and the ToI change, that still doesn't make Meryam's edits disruptive. After you reverted, it's not like Meryam was edit warring to get they're version into the article. The correct choice is to try conversation with the editor; I've left a note on xyr talk page requesting that they discuss the issue on the article's talk page. The problems with copyright and images is one that almost all new editors run into if they try to upload images, since copyright is quite complicated and not something many people understand (since most websites copy and paste content from one another without considering copyright). Yes, Meryam90 may turn out to be a longterm problem if they can't understand the need to discuss changes, but that is not clear yet. Until it is, discuss, explain their errors (politely), provide links to policies, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been trying to do. Here are only a few examples; 1 and 2, but if you examine closely, she doesn't seem to read em. She has a long history of really "troubled", if not disprutive, edits. Regards, Scieberking (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

None of that comes close to disruption. That all looks to me like a new user not understanding Wikipedia's rules. Furthermore, I'm vaguely aware of the fact that box office takes for Indian films are a subject of significant contention across many parts of WP, as my understanding is that different people consider different sources to be authoritative. I don't recall if there is a current consensus, but I do know that, even if there is one, it's something that a new user would be understandably confused about.

The truth is that if you're going to spend a significant amount of time on WP, you're going to run into a lot of new users who simply don't understand. And that makes sense, because Wikipedia is, really, quite difficult--it's the only place I know on the internet that (technically speaking) let's anyone post almost anything, but, practically speaking, has a massive set of complex and interrelated rules that people only somewhat agree on with no final definitive arbitrator of what is or is not okay beyond the highly elusive beast of Consensus. Now, if, after you explain something to Meryam90, and you have the policies or prior discussions to back up your position, and they don't follow proper channels in disputing those issues, then you can contact admins and try for a block. But it's simply not fair to block people just because they don't get the rules, until the problem has gone on for so long and so consistently that the user has proven that they are unable to get the rules, ever. And, before you assert that we're near that here--earlier this year, I worked a little bit with, and other editors worked a lot, with a user very far to the extreme of the Autism spectrum, for nearly a year, before we finally decided that they weren't competent enough to productively contribute. So, if you find yourself having consistent problems with Meryam90 and can't figure out how to deal with it yourself, feel free to ask me for help, and I'll try if I can. It's always better to try to seek a solution than to seek a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as box office collections of Bollywood are concerned, there is almost a complete consensus about Boxofficeindia.com; its data is being used for 90% of the film articles here. TOI, The Economic Times, Bollywood Hungama, Koimoi, NDTV and Hindustan Times are also frequently used. In my opinion, the best way to deal with those new editors who just don't understand is to completely ignore them and try to improve their edits or revert the outright silly ones (sometimes all of it becomes almost unbearable and makes you want to quit WP). In all honestly, while I think most of her current edits are inclined towards fangush, I really hope Meryam makes a great WP contributor. Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ricardo Letts Colmenares

Hi, thanks for the feedback. As you may guess, I am more familiar with the policies at eswikie, so maybe in this case didn't correspond a speedy delete template. Anyway, I will try to explain myself here. First of all, Letts wasn't a member of the national legislature. Instead he participate in a "Popular National Assembly", some kind of alternate non official assembly formed by unions. Moreover, the first editor was named after Ricardo Letts' daughter, so it seems a conflict of interest. Since then, several SPAs insisted in creating again and again the same article (over here and here). I did a little research and explained here the lack of notability (I tried to googletranslated and it works just fine). Sorry for the trouble. Regards, Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 06:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No trouble at all. It looks like, based on your info above, the article does have enough of a claim to pass the speedy deletion criteria, but may not be notable enough to have an article. Basically, the difference on en.wiki is that speedy deletion is only for the absolutely most obvious cases--where there isn't any claim at all of significance or importance; the idea is that speedy deletions are only for those articles that basically everyone would agree with if they reviewed the admin's deletion later. For some reason, Google translate doesn't work well on my computer at work, so I'm going to try to look at that page at home. I may then go ahead and nominate the article for deletion via AfD if it doesn't seem to meet our notability criteria. Thanks very much for your assistance and explanation here. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User page protection

Please do protect my user page. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Odie5533 (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

TV stations

Hey.

I noticed you erased the on air talent from WEWS-TV.

Not a good idea.

Unless you want to change every single article that has a similar set up to this (primarily all TV stations with a news department---not just Cleveland, but all over the country as just about all these articles are set up the same way), then leave channel 5 alone.

Either do them all (and I mean all), or leave them all alone.

Just don't cherry pick.

Vjmlhds 19:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's my plan. It's just going to take me many years. Several users argued argued about the issue at WGN-TV; originally I wanted to keep all of them, but they persuaded me that, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we should only have really important people. The consensus we came to at that article was to keep all full-time anchors (verified by the station's webpage), along with any other people who are themselves notable (have their own wikipage) and who are verified by the station's webpage. Of course, since there are several thousand TV stations, I believe, it's going to take a long time to trim those lists, as it's not a high priority for me. In that interim period, there is nothing wrong with having different articles be different--no policy on WP requires inter-article consistency; any consistency arises after-the-fact, as a consequence of agreements on how articles should be aligned per policy. Sometimes WikiProjects set a standaradized layouts, but WP:WikiProject Television Stations isn't accurate enough to do so.

Of course, as a consequence of the lack of consistency, it means that, if you want, you can argue on the articles talk page that the info shouldn't be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

124.6.181.195

User_talk:124.6.181.195 was blocked yesterday by you for copyright infringement on Light Armor Division (Philippines). Today, User talk:124.6.181.207 has shown up making the same copyright violations within the same IP range. Could you look into extending your block? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocked. That should stop him for awhile. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal: A possible home for the black sandbox

I have a suggestion for a possible home for the User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. How about here: Wikipedia:Abuse response? Maybe the case can be kept perpetually open there, without the usual procedure of contacting the ISP. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the conversation at Talk:Neutralhomer, that location is fine for me. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Here goes. Keep an eye on Wikipedia:Abuse response. When I dump the whole page there, the reaction may be amusing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Abuse_response/IP74.178.195.23. I had to laugh when I clicked save. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Moved to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Parrot32X. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't please them all!

User_talk:Phil_Bridger#Dhadhor - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to join the conversation? I looked at the snippet view, and all it seems to confirm is that there is a (lower case) group called dhador that, in 1924, were some sub-group of Yadav Mahasbha in Uttar Pradesh. In fact, given that "dhador" seems to be a translation of "buffalo breeding", there's no reason to believe that Dhador is an actual, separate, named group. I mean, yeah, they could be, given that groups were often named for their occupation, but we have no certainty that there is. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Do as you feel fit. It is the accusation that I lied about searching which really grates, and then that I have some obsession with garnering edits at the price of quality. Regardless of what PB says, there is a clear lack of faith in my actions/interpretations/statements etc. I thought it pretty abrasive, to be honest, but we all have off days. I've been reading around on the Yadav issue quite a lot and have not yet come across this group (although buffalo = cattle = Yadav, if one wants to synthesise). The words that I see in snippet could just as easily be native terms for cattle breeding etc rather than subcastes, and the use of lower case gave me that impression at the time. It has obviously had the same effect on you. Given that the usual terms are subcaste, clan, gotra and jati, use of the word "segments" seems a little left-field. I see that there have been other run-ins, including with Anna and yourself during the MKY saga, although I was not aware of this when I posted the link above. PB seems to do a lot of work in the rescue area, which is good and something that I have done myself on occasion, but I've seen too many people grasping at a snippet in desperation to just accept those things at face value any more. I might ask at WP:RX for the relevant page(s) of the book mentioned, given that it seems to be an issue of interpretation. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that someone needs to WP:BEFORE, but, then, assuming nothing dramatic pops up, AfD it as OR. All that article says (as far as we can see) is that there were people "employed" as dhador, not that there is a group/sub-caste called Dhador. To assert that there is is pure OR--it would be like taking an article that says that currently, many Native Americans work in casinos and then creating an article on the Casinoworker sub-tribe of native Americans. I may only be only WP lightly for the next few days, but I'll before it when I have time. There's no hurry--the article certainly isn't doing any harm right now. What I really need to do first is respond to the talk page comments with citations at Talk:Nair first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the interwiki bit, I had pretty much done WP:BEFORE without actually ever having read that guidance. Must have learned it by osmosis or something! Another set of eyes would be useful and, as you say, there is no rush. In the interval, I'll dig around to see if I can get hold of the relevant pages so as to clear up what appears now to be an ambiguity. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)