User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Have you got time to revisit an article?

You passed some comments & added some tags to an article regarding which I still have some doubts. I am on decent terms with the present contributor - Abstruce - but remain uneasy about the sourcing. This diff is the latest attempt to bolster, and you will note the iranchamber.com reference immediately above the added paragraph (I've had doubts about that for some time).

I'll certainly take another full look at it myself but it probably won't happen for a day or so & I rather think that Abstruce would prefer to get some encouraging noises (or otherwise) sooner than that, if possible. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. Looking at the about page for Iran Chamber, they appear mainly to be collecting the academic work of others about Iran/Persia in one convenient website. In which case, they aren't the real source; for example, the Dahiya page is just a set of excerpts of one of Dahiya's books/articles. As such, it's the underlying work whose reliability we would need to consider. If Iran Chamber also hosted commentary on those works, we'd need to do more hard thinking/research about whether or not they're reliable, but, for now, it looks like they're merely a hosting service (just like we don't ask the question "Is Google Books a reliable source?"). Of course, we do have to be careful given any time we're looking only at excerpts, as then we have to question what was left out; it's like snippet view, but worse, since we know a human being actually on purpose choice what we can and cannot see, which means we know they were trying to push some idea or POV (even if that's as simple as "what the author believes is an accurate summary"). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll take a look at the AfD. I have little doubt that this remains a highly problematic article. I've definitely spoken with someone about the iranchamber source before & will try to find that. - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Please block this useer Mortifervm, he vandalisez this page FC Steaua București in Europe. PLEASE STOP HIM. 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.8 (talk)

It's not vandalism (that has a very specific meaning--see WP:VANDAL). However, Mortifervm does seem to be wrong, since xe is intentionally changing from direct links to redirects. I can't block Mortifervm, though, since xe has never been issued a warning (the warnings in edit summaries don't count). I just left a warning on Mortifervm's talk page, so if the behavior continues, xe could be blocked. However, I should point out that you can't keep reverting him either--that is WP:Edit warring. Unless you are actually reverting vandalism (which, again, this is not) or something similar, you can't revert more than 3 times in 1 day, ever. So if Mortifervm changes again, don't revert it--just wait for him to be blocked and/or someone else to revert the info. Note that if you revert again, you could yourself be blocked for edit warring (since you're on a dynamic IP, we'd either use a rangeblock or just semi-protect the article). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User page request

Hello Qwyrxian! Just as I said I would ask of you upon deletion, I would like to request Dethcentrik and Død Beverte be moved to my userspace. I also want to create a page for another band, and I will run a draft by you before creating it! -BusyWikipedian (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have userfied both articles; they can be found at User:BusyWikipedian/Dethcentrik and User:BusyWikipedian/Død Beverte. Note that you can only keep these drafts only as long as you are actively working on them; if it looks like you're just keeping them around, then they can be re-deleted. If you ever find that you don't need them anymore, you can just put {{db-u1}} at the top of the page and an admin will delete it shortly. If you need help reviewing the articles later, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I also wanted to add Heathen Beast, if you could check to see if it meets stub criteria I would really appreciate it! Then I would also have experience for my other in-progress articles, I may scrap them and sort of do what I did in this case. BusyWikipedian (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be busy handling critical tasks and standard watchlist upkeeping; I'll try to take a look at that one tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed one of the sources as a blog. Others things you can do:

1. Add information about the band members (names and instruments--this can be pulled from their own website or facebook if it's not covered in independent sources, as band membership is something that can safely be covered by a self-published source.
2. Take a look at [1], and see if you want to add anything from that to the article.
3. Convert the rest of the references into {{Cite web}} format.

Having said all that, the article is possibly okay to move into the main space. Here's the worry: Band notability is usually covered by WP:BAND. Technically, Heathen Beast meets the first criteria, which is the one asking if they've been the subject of detailed coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (note that this is the same as WP:GNG). That being said, some editors might well request that the article be deleted because they don't meet any of the other criteria, at least as far as I can tell. They haven't won major awards, their songs have never charted, they haven't released an album on a major record label, they haven't received coverage for a major international tour, etc. Personally, I usually just ignore articles like this, because my gut instinct is to request deletion, but there are a number in the community who feel the coverage alone is enough, and it's just not worth the fight to me anymore (usually). So, you can move it to mainspace, but you should be aware that it may face some type of deletion process. Unfortunately, there's nothing you can do to the article to fix this problem, because it's not the writing, but the band themselves that may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. In the future, we will likely have to reconsider what Notability means for bands, given that more and more of them are bypassing the whole standard musical establishment by releasing their own albums solely digitally, skipping broadcast/radio airplay for YouTube and other online dissemination, and generally just not working through "traditional" channels. At this point though, Wikipedia has an uneasy relationship with artists of this type. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Chauhan article

I am seeing addition of ORs to this article form varying IPs.They add community forums as references and in process remove the sourced content.I already explained it on discussion page of the article too but no one seems to give attention to it.They are adding following sources as back up which are either community forums or have nothing to do with chauhans.

• A community forum
• Costumes and ornaments of ChambaThis link tells that Gurjars claim suryavansh descent.It nowhere says about chauhan's claim of suryavansh.
• Sun-worship in ancient India by Lālatā Prasāda Pāṇḍeya have nothing to do with chauhans, not even mention of chauhan word in it.

Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have requested long term semi-protection of the article. Assuming this is approved (it could take a day or two, depending on if RPP is backlogged or not), that will at least temporarily stop IP editors from being able to edit the article; ideally, this will force them to come and discuss the issues on the talk page, where we can do a better job of explaining WP's sourcing rules to them. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.The problem is that they want to keep only their version and in that process they remove other theories.Mkrestin (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Concern about IP

An IP recently got warned on Sept 18 and 27 for disruptive editing. [2] I looked at all their edits [3] and only see what might be a test edit, odd removal of content, and repeated section blankings. I don't see any actual contributions. Should I just continue to watch since they only got 2 warnings? Is telling you (as an admin) all I needed to do? Or is there some board I should take it to? Cloveapple (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A good question. I looked at the edit history as well. Yes, this IP address is definitely vandalizing right now. The problem is that many IP addresses are dynamic, which means they change every few days to weeks, so we have no way of knowing whether or not the edits from September 21 or earlier are the same editor. So, usually, all we keep doing is reverting and warning the editor until its abundantly clear that a block is necessary to prevent disruption to the project.

Having said that, that does not mean that we actually have to go through levels 1-4 of warnings, and then only after xe vandalizes again, block xyr. In fact, given that user's response to the warnings just now was to replace them with the text "big-b a n a n a :)", it's pretty clear that this person is not here to contribute productively. As such, I'm leaving a message on xyr talk page now that they can consider this a final warning, and any more vandalism will result in a block.

Of course, if the user stops, and doesn't start up again for a week, we're still in a difficult position, because we can't be totally sure it's the same person. It would be up to an admin to make that call.

If the user does vandalize the encyclopedia again (except for playing around on xyr own talkpage), the next step is to report the user to WP:AIV (or, if I see it, I'll just block myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very clear explanation. It's nice to know what the (hopefully unused) next step would be. Cloveapple (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I made a brief edit over a year ago to Pennhurst State School and Hospital and as I was sort of looking through what the article has gone through since, I saw your name pop up quite a bit, and noticed that both your edits and your talk page comments were wise and levelheaded. The article still could use some cleanup, which I intend to tackle, but I wanted to drop a quick note of thanks in the meantime. Mreleganza (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for the positive note! I haven't done all of the cleanup, but I do my best. I don't think I've looked at the article in months....always something new popping up that distracts me from the hundreds of "old projects" hanging out in my watchlist. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: Drugsarebad89

lol, many users believe I am an admin, but WP:NOTNOW. I see no reason for block the account longer, although s/he has disrupted a bit, I'm trying to assume good faith and think that a/he is trying to understand Wikipedia, unfortunately s/he is not starting very well. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll try to keep monitoring the user after the block expires. However, I'm not watching those articles, so if that editor clearly comes back under a new IP socking, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I'm surprised that while the Wikipedia editors split hair at castes that they consider to be disputed, they've let the caste article on Bengali Brahmins go wild with unsubstantiated claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengali_Brahmins (Gyanvigyan1 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Most likely it's because English Wikipedia has nearly 4 million articles plus an equal number of article talk pages, and countless user and Wikipedia policy/guideline/noticeboard pages. I personally have edited over 12,000 different pages (and "only" watch about 3000), but even that is aboutreall .1% of all en.wikipedia pages. Of course, you're welcome to be bold and start editing away on any page with bad information. If you find uncited info that isn't too controversial, mark it with a "citation needed" template, then check back in a few weeks and see if anyone improved it, and, if not, remove it at that point. If the information is highly dubious, hurts living people, or is otherwise excessively bad, just take it out right away with a clear edit summary (and maybe an explanation on the talk page if it's complex). Is there a chance you'll be reverted? Of course. But maybe not, especially on a more obscure article. If you run into problems with editors trying to continually re-add dubious, badly sourced or unsourced information, let me know and I can take a look and also advise how to start dealing with the problem. Seriously, every day I am amazed at how much bad material there is on Wikipedia. We do a really, really good job on some subjects (say, popular US and British television shows, core scientific concepts, much of US and Western European history), and a really bad job on others (like, half or more of the pages on anything related to India), and we're missing whole major subjects (like much of African history and politics). This is part of the systemic bias which MangoWong rightly talks about being a significant problem in Wikipedia. Just today, I was cleaning up the alumni list for Mithibai College (don't ask how that ended up on my watchlist), and as I was quickly scanning through the linked articles, I very intentionally tried to look at them very little beyond looking for the specific piece of info that I needed, because at least half of them were only trivially sourced, made all sorts of claims about the people's personal lives without sources, etc. I just don't have time to start handling the bio pages of 20 different Bollywood stars, artists, and other Indian celebrities (beyond those I already watch now). This is why the push from the Foundation to bring in more editors from India (and other non-US countries) is so critical, because we really do need help from people who care about these topics. As a side note, if you think caste articles involve lots of fighting, take a look at articles related to The Balkans, where things became so bad that the Arbitration Committee placed every single article directly or indirectly related to those topics under very serious and strict sanctions.

Still, we all do what we can, and what we're interested in, and (hopefully), what we're best at. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Yadav clearly on the bad side of signal/noise parity

Talk:Yadav has gone near a dozen posts of pointless repetitive rambling and whining. Is there some point where we can just start deleting non-constructive IP posts there? I realise that censoring IPs or making them feel unwelcome is bad, but it's honestly just drivel at this point. Further, this sudden rash of IP whining seems a little suspect, but again it's pretty hard to pin anything on an IP other than just blocking them. Not to go seeing conspiracy behind every bush or anything, but we've had plenty of similar outbreaks on caste articles, a sudden influx of IPs with no/little previous contrib history and/or new SPAs suddenly flocking to an article, in ways not suggested by the normal traffic to Talk pages. We've only once (at Talk:Nair) had someone flat-out say "there's a campaign on Orkut to come to Wikipedia and defend the Nair caste", but I do suspect there's some off-wiki canvassing and meat-puppeting going on, or else some IP-hopping socking. This just doesn't sniff right. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Do we know anyone friendly enough who will web/SNS search for us in the likely local languages? Like "Yadav Wikipedia", but in whatever we would guess they would be writing in. Or, maybe better, "Yadav Wikipedia MatthewVanitas" or something similar, since if there is off-wiki coordination, I'm sure our names must come up. Identifying clear off-wiki canvassing would mean that this is transformed from a content discussion into a behavioral problem that requires administrative attention.

I'll look into Talk:Yadav some time today, but I think I need to get on the other side of a cup of coffee or two first. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Gender

Hi. I read at User talk:AlexandrDmitri/Archive 2#Evidence_length.2C_draft_version that you use gender-neutral pronouns because you don't want to guess. I don't want to guess either, but I am guessing that you did not know that MediaWiki on WMF wikis can tell you the self-identified gender of an editor if that editor has expressed it. For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&usprop=gender&ususers=Qwyrxian says your self-identified gender is "unknown" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=users&usprop=gender&ususers=Jeff_G. says that mine is "male" (not that I haven't revealed that elsewhere). The data is entered as "Gender" in the "Basic information" section of the "User Profile" tab on Special:Preferences, and is accompanied by the disclaimer "Optional: used for gender-correct addressing by the software. This information will be public."   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pages under Vandalism - Nair and subpages

Thanks, I am not an expert. will learn the wiki system and do better. However, let the technical expertise of some users kill the credibility of wiki project.

The administrators of the pages under Nair, List of Nairs etc. should note seriously that there have been some systematic vandalism on these pages - by a user by name Sitush, assisted by MathewVanitas. Once he is barred from Nair pages - he goes to List of Nairs, page then, to Samanathan Page. He is MISUSING the two cardinal principles of Wiki - Citation and Collaboration. He raises 'citations needed' for some facts that he does not like and injects, his own without any citations or fake citations. And he misuses collaboration. he deletes/modifies everybody else's contributions in a manner that the contribution either goes out of Nair pages or it goes into Ezhava page. It is clear that he is an Ezhava/Thiyaa from Kerala. You must immediately suspend his rights to delete and edit. Else wikipedia credibility will be impacted as the truth can not be suppressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unnithan1956 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No. In my experience, Sitush and MatthewVanitas are usually right. They are the ones who look for reliable sources, and actually read what the sources say, instead of just picking out one sentence, or picking a source they like even though it's completely unreliable. Citation needed tags are appropriate every single time a sentence is not "obvious". It's very simple: info on Wikipedia must be verifiable, and, if it's not, it can be removed. Furthermore, sources must be reliable (follow that link to get an explanation of what that means). I admit that Sitush and MV are not perfect, but the key is that they learn from their errors.

If you think either of them are so bad that they need to be blocked, go to WP:ANI and open a new discussion. You will need to provide evidence; this is usually done with diffs, which are links to specific edits made by the people you are accusing. Following that link will teach you how to get diffs. Note that if you do go to ANI, not only Sitush's and MV's behavior, but also your own will be scrutinized. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

Well, I guess it is leave in error he who loves his error. But as for ourselves, is anything I can do? Fleet Command (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this in reference to? Is this about my recent conversation with User:Dream Focus about WP:BURDEN? Or something back from the issue you and I were last involved in (Template:Dale Brown, if I recall correctly)? Or some other places where we've crossed paths? Apologies: I feel like I'm bouncing around so many places on WP recently, I can't keep track of who goes with which issue? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first guess was right. It was in reference to the recent Dream Focus talk page discussion. Is there anything I can do? I can go improve the article... but it is likely I will face a revert. Fleet Command (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was slow to reply here. You can certainly go and improve that article (Dreamwidth). In fact, my complaint to Dream Focus was that xe had found information that could be used to improve the article, and xe refused to add it, so I'm very much in favor of improvements based on RS. Many members of the Article Rescue Squadron are great editors who do a wonderful job of improving articles that were overlooked and shouldn't actually be deleted. Other members somehow have lost sight of the actual goal of the project, which is to have a better encyclopedia. Dream Focus seems to think that as long as the article is still in the encyclopedia, then the work is done, even if it has all of the flaws identified in the AfD. I further disagree with Dream Focus's implication that our readers don't actually care whether our information is verified and out subjects found notable; I think that some of our readers don't but others actually do look at footnotes, and are capable of saying "huh, everything here is from the company itself...that's not so useful".

So if you go add to that article, I don't think anyone's going to revert you. Dream Focus wasn't saying we shouldn't add to the article, he was simply saying he wasn't going to do it, for reasons I simply don't understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are right. I guess I will improve the article, though not now: We have a huge backlog that requires the attentions of filemovers. I am going in. I will be as busy as you were.

Oh, don't be sorry for being busy. In my book, you are always automatically alright. Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor character list and Music list on Seinfeld article.

I'll keep the message short. I was wondering if you have any objections and also rather you want to do it? It's been a while since we discussed the consensus on the list and not to get too edgy but it can't wait forever. You can do it if you want since I'm still barred from getting near it. I just wanted to know that's all before I get to continue moving on. Well I'm trying to do it in a fair and honest way. Anyway, it's a question whether you wanted to do it now or later. I won't force you but take your time.

On a side note, it's a not a happy outcome for The Finale but I'm still left with one question: It's whether the story is satisfactory the way it is now. Since we're keeping the line "Jerry, I've always..." I don't know if anyone's happy with it. I'm not happy but I still need a third opinion because I haven't asked anyone else yet. Besides, I've already given in to it leaving me with question marks all over my head. I'll be happy to move on after these have been really resolved. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the main Seinfeld article--I am only acting as an admin and mediator on that article, and have no intention of providing any input on the actual content. On The Finale, I don't understand what you mean. The quote seems to be an integral part of the story, so keeping it seems necessary; if you've accepted keeping it, then it's done, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, but am I still not allowed to take down the lists? That's all I'm asking really. So far, I haven't been given a go ahead and I'm very careful not to cross the line without discussion first. For The Finale, I've accepted the line but I do wish there's a payoff to it. I won't argue with you. I'm still thinking on what I can or cannot do. That's all. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloomsbury Fightback!

Thanks for letting me know about your decline of the A7 CSD for Bloomsbury Fightback!. I did think it was fairly borderline myself, so I have no quarrel with your decision to put it on one side of the border rather than the other. I have taken it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi,

Responded on my talk page.

Thanks, --Therexbanner (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Got more, Thanks.--Therexbanner (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

CyberDefender

As it turns out, the blog you removed from the article has been cited (with some skepticism) by a more reliable source, so I made this edit to the article. However, I also found an undeniably reliable reference, in French, in which CyberDefender is cited as the whistleblower in the very type of scam it is accused of being, and I'm wondering whether I should add it as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Techdirt is still a weblog, so it's still not reliable. The thing is, I don't doubt the veracity of the claims (that CD sent letters claiming defamation), but without a reliable source, we can't include it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks again

Please take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Factchecker_atyourservice#Your_reading_comprehension -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD

Could you please delete Jon Nelson (guitarist)? Thanks! Spidey665 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the speedy deletion. Remember, WP:CSD#A7 states that it is only for people (etc.) who lack a "credible claim of significance or importance". Being the lead guitarist in a highly notable band is a claim of importance, and since Nelson is discussed in the ST article, it's credible. Note that the bar for speedy deletion is much, much higher than the bar for AfD. Even an entirely unsourced article can meet A7, so long as that credible claim is there. Now, it's very likely that this article should eventually be deleted, because there is no evidence that Nelson is notable (notability cannot be inherited from the band), but to do that you're going to have to take the article to AfD. Of course, before you do that, be sure to check to see if there are any sources available that discuss Nelson independently of Suicidal Tendencies. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd

but not entirely surprising. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Technical question.

The edit buttons for this field of typing worked for me for years. Then yesterday the buttons for edit, like to add bold to a word, etc., stopped working. I cleared my cache. That did not help. Restarting and focus on just this one WP program did not help. Are you aware of any issue concerning this function? The button look live, but they do not allow action to occur over the typed text. Thank you for your moment on this. Joefaust (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The WMF rolled out a a new version of the Mediawiki interface yesterday. If you go to WP:Village pump (technical)#1.18 issues, there's a whole massive thread of problems, and my guess is your problem is related to one of those. It looks like which problems occur is highly dependent on the browser you're using and exactly which gadgets/editing options you have turned on. Take a look at that thread and see if there is anything there that helps...sorry, I'm not much help on the technical side of Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian. Joefaust (talk)

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much for helping with the Blendr page!

Andromedarama (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! One of the unexpected things about becoming an admin is that I'm coming into contact with more new pages tagged for deletion, and sometimes I spot one where a quick search turns up a clearly notable topic. It gives me an excuse to actually build an article from almost the ground up. As a side note, since I was able to expand it to over 1500 characters, I've nominated the article for DYK. That's a feature on the main page where we highlight new, referenced articles to show them off to the community (and hopefully get other people interested in editing the article as well). I think I scoured through nearly every article linked on Blendr's Press page, and a few others that turned up through a Google News search, but, please feel free to keep improving the article. One thing I know we need to do is upload an image of the program, like in the Infobox at Grindr, but doing that requires working with images and providing a full Fair Use rationale, which is not something I enjoy doing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I'm confused then. I thought both the logo and screenshot were ok to use per this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images. You're saying there's an additional process I need to go through? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedarama (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The logo is definitely, though I'd have to research on the screenshots. However, to do fair use, you have to 1) upload the image to Wikipedia instead of Commons (Commons only accepts free images, while WP accepts copyrighted fair-use images) and 2) you have to provide a full accounting of why fair use is warranted in this situation. I've never done that before (I'm not really an image person), but if you don't feel like wading through all of the instructions (it's one of the more complex things to do on WP), let me know and I'll tackle it (though I may not be able to do it today). As I mentioned on your talk, you can see an example of the way fair use works for logos if you go to Grindr and click on the logo and look at its image page. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That is one mess I am glad not to have been involved in, although obviously I have seen a fair amount of discussion about it. Hopefully, you now have more time to spend on other aspects of the WP project. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it will be easier now that the two worst of the "bad apples" have been removed from the topic, but we still have to sort out what to do with the name of the article (sinc ArbCom doesn't rule on content). One major push left on that front--we'll have to do some sort of RfC or other community process to see what the current consensus on the name is. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Edit war again - I noted your previous lock of the article. I think you need to wade in with the big stick once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassTwiceAsBig (talk • contribs) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, only 2 of you are edit warring (one person reverted with Huggle with a generic edit summary, which makes me think they just reverted because they thought they saw you removing large chunks of cited info, and guessed it was vandalism). As such, you both need to stop, and discuss on the article's talk page. While you get slightly more deference because you're removing negative info from a BLP, that deference is only very slight, because the information is at least nominally sourced. Remember, WP:BLP doesn't say that no negative info may be in an article. It only requires that the info be very well sourced. I haven't looked at or evaluated the sources that Mike Searson is using, nor do I intend to, because instead both of you are now going to stop and discuss the issue on the talk page (ideally with other editors, since that's a well-watched article). Unless this erupts into a multi-party edit war, I'm not going to protect the article; instead, I'll be watching to make sure that no one breaches 3RR or the general edit-warring restrictions. One additional option you can take, since you're arguing that these are BLP violations, is to take the issue to WP:BLPN; however, they may well say, "Why are you bringing this here instead of discussing it on the talk page?" Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried discussing it on the talk page, the other user, just reverts, calls me a troll, whiner, etc. Changes were discussed this morning with another user. My sources were reliable, but Glass seems to think that any valid criticism violates WP:BLP. I regularly edit BLP articles and find his remarks way off base. I don't know if he is a new user or another user under a newer account, but I write articles based on reliable sources and cannot remember the last time I saw such blatant POV pushing. I'll back off for now, but don't think this is in the spirit of wikipedia at all. Sorry you had to be dragged into this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, just to be fair, it's pretty hard to have a useful conversation with someone (you) who says, "You'll never see any real criticism in this piece. This has to be the most shockingly one-sided biography I've ever read in my life; if it doesn't make moore look good, his minions delete it." How is someone supposed to respond to that? But even if the problem is that no one is listening, then you still can't try to "fix" the problem by edit warring. Your initial edit, boldly inserting new sourced info to the text, was good. Now that you've been reverted, you need to go to talk and justify your edits--not your overall attitude, not argue about whether the article is biased or not, but specifically state, "I added this, this and this, with this source, and this source, and those all seem to meet WP:RS to me, so why is it being removed?" That places an onus on Glass & others to provide a specific justification. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks again for the education.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Marcus Qwertus and Ohio politicians

I have a serious issue with the reversions that Marcus Qwertus is doing on Ohio politicians. Why I fully understand the harm and problems of sockpuppets, the fact that this individual is constantly reverting edits that seem to legitimately update and improve on Ohio legislators seems wrong. For example, there are probably a dozen current edit requests for protected pages, complete with sources and references, that Marcus Qwertus has reverted for the sole reason of "denying" a sockpuppet he follows. I think this is against the goal of wikipedia, and needs to be addressed.

Could you attend to these edit requests, but also discuss this issue with the community and Marcus Qwertus to come to a consensus of what needs to be done. Regardless of what the user has done in the past, if there is legitimized information that can be added, I think it needs to be done. 76.250.190.255 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently investigating. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help to stop the terrible attacks and deletions of articles pertaining to Ohio politicians by User:Marcus Qwertyus. He has consistently been on attack against one user and is now creating a terrible drain of information on Wikipedia. EVERY and I mean EVERY article he has deleted has been stocked with credible sources and are liable. He is creating a great disservice to individuals in Ohio, especially in an election year. Can you please see that each of articles on a Ohio politician that he has deleted are has submitted to be deleted is reinstated. I am willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that this does not continue to happen. I am greatly outraged! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.215.130 (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

please

Please take a look at this> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ClaudioSantos_violates_topic_ban.3F.3F

A thread asking if I have broken the euthanasia topic ban for editing eugenics was opened. It was the 4 time the same thread is opened with the same question by the same users, and all the times it was answered that I have not broken the euthanasia topic ban by editing eugenics topics. Factchecker who was warned by you for using very rude words, like calling me "dishonet", he is one of those who came to that thread calling me again "dishonest". Now I am going to be banned also for eugenics topics beause I asked if opening 4 times the same thread and continuosly PA me was stalking me, and because I under the pressure said that one user was "lying" because he said that I have 6 bans which is false. Perhaps one wrong word after I have patiently answered all the 4 threads that have been opened asking the same question. Asking 4 times the same question at the ANI and putting me under such a pressure up to desperate me is an unfair way to have an excuse to ban me now. Pleas read carefully the thread -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

grin Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help on the conversation on your talk page w/Factchecker was fine, but asking someone to comment on an ANI thread comes very close to violating WP:CANVAS. I probably don't have anything useful to add to the ANI thread. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Request of what you have in view

1. Thanks much for your time and guidance so far. Do you see my comment to you on my Talk just your your post to me? I am not sure where to reply. 2. You wrote in discussion: "In fact, I can even think of a similar article that was recently deleted under the same rationale..." Would you share what similar article and what rationale? Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks (re)

Did you see what Mr. IP has said. He says "Reddys are a dastardly caste and Foodie should be ashamed. shame on foodie" I was merely replying in kind. Ask him to strike off what he wrote, I will reciprocate. Alternatively, feel free to delete the whole section. Foodie 377 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI, proposed topic ban

I have proposed new phrasing which I believe addresses your concerns. If you have a better suggestion, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly 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 read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Information regarding Family of Ali

I still don't understand, why did you remove my given information. These informations are all part of Ali's Biography and these are necessary hidden truths and need to be discussed and included into the article beside with that what about Ali's other 9 Wives and his 19 Sons and 18 daughters...If you are having an issue with a particular sect/Religion/Person, kindly let us discuss it on Talk: Ali and explain what, specifically in broad perspective your motives are;...If a reasonable explanation isn't given I am afraid issue would be raised with Complainant administration.Ashurnasirpal 10:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long; I read your comment, but didn't have time to respond at that moment, then forgot about it. I've opened up a discussion on Talk:Ali, and would appreciate your input. In part, my concern is with the source you've used, but, if that source is okay, the bigger issue is that Wikipedia should not just be a collection of quotations. Our job is to take what other reliable, secondary sources have said and summarize them, not just quote them. Perhaps there's a way to keep the info while cutting out all of the quoting. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sorry for the biggest interruption last month. I was trying to patrol on new pages but I really understand my concerns. I read its deletion policies and I know about how to do them I can define the reason why its deleted or so. Again, Thanks!. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, and thanks for reading up on that. If you ever have questions, feel free to ask me at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion "MikeWazowski repeatedly refusing to repond to multiple editors on user or article talk page"

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. Cloveapple (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even "self" identification seems inadequate for referring in talks to live persons of reference.

What if someone comes in a TALK where a real living person JOHN VIP HERE is part of the contents of a topic. And says 7777xxxxx comes in on account and says "I am that content-related person, I AM JOHN VIP HERE." My thought is that WP would have us work on the conservative side and not let our talk allow that the claimer is in fact the real live JOHN VIP HERE. It seems like ten people could claim they are the real living person that is important to a content topic. Thus, the guide to say nothing about the private life of a real living person would rule in a TALK page. Tough. Just thinking what admins might want. in discussion, though I am account joefast and I claimed to be Joe Faust of related to content in some articles; that does not me that I am actually that living person; perhaps I am really account joefaust and really not Joe Faust of the related field of a topic. Indeed I might be Tom Stewart, non-PG person. Joefaust (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's take me as an example, since my name is clearly not my real name. If I claim to be Rick Masters (I'm not, but let's just pretend that I say I am), then you would be allowed to call me that. If I say, "I'm the Rick Masters who runs website X," then you could say "Hey, Rick, I read such and such on your site..." or "...Rick, you shouldn't be adding links to your site anywhere on Wikipedia because of WP:COI rules." Am I really Rick Masters? I don't know. Does it matter? Not in the slightest, because even if I really am Rick Masters, that doesn't give me any special authority on Paragliding, Paraglider, or any other article on WP. For example, we have known, demonstrated experts in a variety of scientific fields editing here on WP. And their input is very useful, but only because they're good at finding reliable sources, helping guide discussions, etc. As soon as they start to say "Well, I know this is true because I'm an expert," that's when people stop listening to them. Especially since, as you point out, we can't even verify that they are an expert.

Now, there are two exceptions to this. If someone claimed to be someone that they almost certainly are not, we may block them for impersonation. So, if User: Muammar Gaddafi showed up tomorrow and starting editing articles on Libya, well, we'd almost certainly block the user immediately, because, well, Gaddafi isn't editing Wikipedia, right? Second, if the subject of an article did show up, and was requesting special consideration as the subject (something we allow to a very small degree), we'd ask them to use our Volunteer Response Team to verify that the person is, in fact, who they claim to be. As for people like we're talking about with regarding to paragliding, we would probably be flexible, until such time as the person started causing a problem (or there were counter-claims, or something to that effect). For our purposes, though, the most important rule is this: don't connect editors on Wikipedia to real life names if they haven't done so themselves, or even to other online personalities. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that in some dialects of the English language the name Joe is often used to refer to a non existent person. Joe is often a generic name given to a fictitious person, sometimes to facilitate an explanation. "Hey Joe, I love you", I said, for example. In this case, of course, we know "joefaust" is Joe Faust because you told us when complaining, in the way my children do, about the unfair treatment you received in a totally unrelated set of conversations elsewhere on the inter-web. And as for impersonating retired hang glider pilots trashing paragliding? No one could impersonate such a person, no one is sufficiently clever to keep up with this type of thinking. Any imposter would be outed in seconds. 88xxxx (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Bodheswaran

You had a brief involvement with Bodheswaran a couple of weeks ago. I have been trying to source it. There was a note in the body of the article which claimed permission to reproduce from an short essay by his daughter. I removed the note here because I think that we need OTRS permission and even then it may not be suitable.

I have subsequently found a copy/paste of the entire article in this book, which may or may not be related to the work referred to in the above note. The original note appears in August 2009 & refers to an unpublished essay. This predates the 2010 publication date of the book, but the note was then changed by a contributor who may have a COI and the word "unpublished" disappears, for obvious reasons.

It is a bit of a mess. Do you have any thoughts, aside from the obvious "the article needs to be improved"? Is this one for User:Moonriddengirl? I do not want to overburden her unnecessarily as she has got a lot on her plate with WMF stuff. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would take it out. You are correct that unless the CC-SA-3.0 or GFDL is officially verified somewhere, we cannot take someone's word on it. OTRS can handle it, but if they didn't then, I don't think we could possibly do a retroactive release, since the essay has now been copyrighted. For simplicity, I say stub it, replace only the info verified in RS (and that book can be RS). It's much much better to have a stub now than an article of unclear copyright status. It's entirely possible that the person meant to do things the right way, or even that that book is copied from Wikipedia. But, it's not really such a critical article or info that it really deserves any risk. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Block evasion

Check [4]. Looks pretty similar to [5] whom you have a 2-week block 7 days ago. Seems like he got a new IP and is continuing in the exact same way. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I blocked the second IP for a month. Let me know if more show up; the only article of his set that I have on my watchlist is Hora (dance); if the IP keeps hopping, we may need to consider semi-protection on the articles instead. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mine was Haredim and Zionism. I'll keep an eye on that and let you know if I see any further trouble. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Atterion

User:Atterion, a sock referred to at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aawjgnekr/Archive not too long ago, appears to be back as an IP. See Special:Contributions/98.68.153.161. I have reverted all three contributions for now and hope that they will just go away. You took part in that SPI but I guess there is little that can be done against an IP in situations such as this? - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy: I blocked the IP for 72 hours. If after the block the same IP starts up again, let me know and I'll reblock for longer. If a different IP starts in with the same edits, let me know as well and either I'll try to learn about rangeblocks, or I'll find someone who already knows. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok thanks. I once looked at the rangeblock article ... and mentally crashed/burned. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

KCOY-TV

The point has been made directly to you now. Whether you choose to remove the source as a copyvio, you yourself have seen the evidence and now there is irrefutable proof that KCOY was using the (sourced) contemporary CBS promo package of that day. You, therefore, cannot remove the, now proven to be accurate, information. If a future editor chooses to challenge the facts of the case, I can deal with them in the same fashion. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm too angry right now to answer this. I'll get back to you later. The short version is, you're both wrong and really wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And after thinking about it on and off through the course of the day, I've come to the conclusion that there's really only one thing I want to do: remove all TV station articles from my watchlist. They fill up my watchlist every day with changes to the names of reporters, or the time they're appearing on, or slogans that no one can verify...and they're ultimately not worth it. Most TV station articles need to be reduced by about 50-60%, since they're terribly undersourced (especially the history sections), contain all sorts of WP:NOTEVERYTHING violations (like the aforementioned lists of reporters), but often are aggressively "protected" by local viewers (or, not in your case but in other cases, employees or ex-employees). As such, I think the best solution for me is just to forget the whole mess. I have other things I can do on WP that are a better use of my time and energy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Trackinfo (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Weigh in?

Would you like to weigh in at the discussion in Talk:India on some 40 odd images? I know that's a lot, but a simple Yes/No would be adequate. Of course, if you choose to comment at more length, it would be even better. The India page is now the second most-viewed country page (after the US) and the 15th page overall, so having a set of high quality representative pictures becomes even more imperative. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation on Paraglider to reopen HOW?

How could WP let one corner of Paragliding also prevent the wide world of the "paraglider" be without disambiguation? How do we reopen the discussion to keep ownership of sport paragliding from grabbing paraglider which goes FAR beyond sport "paragliding"? It is like applies and oranges. WP wants to grow knowledge. Thanks for help on opening "paraglider" for disambiguation. Thanks, Newbie: Joefaust (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do just what I said on talk: discus it there, and provide some reliable sources that verify each of the things you had an the dab are considered paragliders by reliable sources. As soon as you provide at least 2 (actually, 1, since obviously "paragliding" itself is a self-evidence link), and consensus accepts that source and definition, then the dab can be recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Will do, thanks.Joefaust (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

re: IP Vandal on Van Halen, GnR, etc.

Hello. Thanks for the quick fix the other evening. This Brazilian editor is back today & making a large number of edits. I see there's been some images that have been removed from some band's infoboxes. Not quite vandalism, but these things are definitely going to ruffle some feathers. I haven't touched any of the edits yet. The user is 189.79.226.59. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 02:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bongwarrior nailed it 4 minutes after you posted here, blocked for 31 hours :). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Blendr

Hi Qwyrxian, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Blendr and would like to try and hammer out a hook that we can both agree on. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Livingstone Primary School, Melbourne.
Message added 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)