User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

James Tod

A note, to thank you for your help in raising James Tod to GA status. Despite the discontent about the treatment of Tod on talk pages away from the article, nothing too dramatic actually appeared where it mattered. Perhaps people realised that it was in fact a reasonable depiction of the subject after all. The drama elsewhere involving my contribution to matters Indian is, however, reaching new levels. When it comes to drama, I am at present a one-man West End. Oh, shucks. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at User_talk:Binksternet#Tod. I need to do some research on the FA process etc, and perhaps tap into the knowledge of someone like Malleus or Drmies. However, do you fancy this ride? You are the one who set this particular ball rolling & I would be glad to have you by my side. As I see it, sooner or later I have to face the FA process, be it with this article or some other.

And on a different issue, I am not responding to the latest edit requests at Talk:Nair. I could, but I will not. These things need to be spread around a little otherwise the current re-emergence of vague accusations relating to a certain blog will surely only increase. No need for you to respond either, of course. Someone will pick it up. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Working backwards, I just removed one of the requests from Talk:Nair. You can't do an edit request that way--it's impossible to actually parse. I'll look at the other one, too, since one of the IPs specifically asked me to.

As for FA...I have never been through, or even looked at the process. As far as I understand it, it takes months, and involves lots of arguing (between FA judges and article editors). I don't even know what we would need to do to prepare. But the encyclopedia having more FA is certainly a positive. Let me know when you try; I can certainly take a look to see what needs to be done and assist where I can.

And, finally, congrats on another GA! Next, lets get Yadav to GA status...shouldn't be hard, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yadav? Ha! I think that earth will need to burn up before that one can be promoted. Regarding Tod, the FA process is new to me also. The article has had one peer review and then the GA review. Putting it through another formal peer review is not likely to achieve much by way of preparation, although I do think that Binksternet is most likely correct in suggesting that the notability needs pushing a little more in the lead. I've made a few minor changes since the GA but will give it a while longer as I finally got hold of Freitag's PhD thesis (largely a word-for-word version of his book, but there may be the odd nugget that did not pass the book editor's cutting). I might ask around to find someone who has gone through the FA process a few times & is therefore a little clueful but, yes, I will be letting both you and Binksternet know if it happens because you both appear to have an sense of the thing & are not ruling out FA. - Sitush (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User:24.36.160.165

Hi Qwyrxian, IP User:24.36.160.165, whom you blocked earlier this month, is back to his old ways. It's getting to be a pain reverting his deletions and changes in articles various that he makes without explanation or justification, for example: [1], [2], [3], and he seems to be up to other mischief as well. I've reverted these examples but can you help put a stop to this permanently? He also appears to be a sock of IP 65.92.50.189. Thanks, --Chefallen (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I upped this block length to 2 months. There's nothing we can do "permanently", because we never block IP accounts indefinitely. Each time it occurs, we'll keep upping the block length. When an IP is being disruptive, it's always possible to consider semi-protection, but this editor is on too many different articles to make that plausible. At this point, the best solution is probably just keep blocking (if it re-occurs in 2 months, I'll up it to 6 months). I wish the user would just use a talk page; it may well be that xyr edits have merit, or that some sort of compromise may be possible, but edit warring to force xyr preferred version just won't solve anything. If another IP popups up with the same edits, let me know and I'll block that one, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. I'll let you know if I notice any more of the same behavior, but as you say, let's rather hope the user comes around to discussing issues after the block. --Chefallen (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Qwyrxian! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting the survey; it's right above :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops...i saw it pop up on other people's pages, but missed it in the flurry of other changes on this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check

Please see if first paragraph of 88xxxx User page meets WP stands of personal attack. It reads to me as a personal attack on a real person; he took a typo and then inserted his comments that seem against WP policies. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Joe created User:88xxxx at 23:02, 3rd October 2011, right here: [4], taking his cue and understanding the need for a user account, I created User:88xxxx and posted for the first time 1h 41m later. The square/circle comment has been there for weeks. I have no wish to gloat, I just wish to see the paragliding pages more forward again. Just a passing comment, and my last for 6 months. Adios! 88xxxx (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the bullshit. That was his short hand way of referring to the IP address you currently had. Fix your userpage. Why is this your last comment for 6 months? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

All right keep your knickers on. I'll edit the 88xxxx userpage for you. By the time you read this it should all be smelling of roses. Sadly you read the poorer of the two, my favourite reply was on the 88xxxx talk page. 88xxxx (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why 6 months? I think it's my turn to say "Stop with the bullshit", right? I came to WP for one purpose only, to correct (what I would call abusive) editing that went against mainstream thinking (without consensus you call it), was clearly stretching the bounds of reality (lying as I call it), renaming standard equipment terminology (making it up, as we all call it) and generally making a mess of the whole bloody thing (WP:SOMEACRONYM as WP no-doubt calls it). Although I consider myself a good communicator, I do not see myself making a particularly good candidate for WP editor. Generally speaking, that is. I believe there are far better editors capable of making WP pages more accurate than I, especially with respect to our small niche. You have not been played, and you have not been lied to, at least not by me. You can rest easy on that score. I have just spent an hour or so each day for the past month helping WP come to their own independent conclusions by stating facts. Luckily, for WP, your conclusions pretty much tie in with what thousands of others away from this encyclopaedia know. These past few weeks have been an exercise in futility on my part and of repetitively stating fact after fact about something I know a lot about. Others will have taken it personally however. So... 6 months then. 88xxxx (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

False and disruptive edits by user

Hi! If you remember this one from a few weeks ago: [5] - he just returned and is going on with the same behavior as before, such as the edit war here: [6] and false edits here [7]. I'm afraid this person doesn't understand anything and doesn't seem to be reading anything anyone writes on his talk page or on article talk pages. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah never mind, I see you already got him for another 2 months. Thanks!

Muhammad Images...

Hi Qwyrxian, just so you know, while I discount Ludwigs2's motives (as he himself has expressed in his own words), I did not (and will not) discount any points on policy or guideline he brought up. If you review my proposal for the RfC, you may note that. It addresses every issue raised, including the new resolution, by addressing the historic value and relevance of each image. If no relevance, or if no historic value, then the image(s) should be deleted as (besides other policies and guidelines) they are in contravention with the new resolution. That was (per my proposal) to be followed by uninvolved editors and/or admins making the final determination on the outcomes of each discussion for each image and question (to avoid those who did participate (and are thus involved) from starting any back and forth on consensus and validity of arguments). The final part I intend(ed) to propose was reviewing the quantity (not just a case by case quality review), which covers all aspects of potential overkill/underkill in that respect too. Alas, as noted by his RfC "proposals" he's not happy with mine (or any other) because it's not worded as "should we delete all of them for this reason - or this one?" - that of course is not a legitimate RfC and reeks of BIAS and POV pushing. I've, on multiple occasions, tried to get things back on track and suggest (more than once) a proposal that's not biased and supports what he's pretending he's really trying to do - with no luck. I'm open for suggestions, because at this point, every attempt to formulate an RfC to fully address this issue (except for the "remove all... or remove all" scenario) is being taken off track to push the bias and POV noted above (and in numerous diffs I've already posted on that talk page and elsewhere. Side note, it doesn't help when he tries to (on more than one occasion) circumvent the ongoing RfC process because he's not getting his way (summary removal of all images). I've tried, more than once, to give him everything he claims he wants out of an RfC - but am getting nowhere because (as he's stated elsewhere) it's not what he really wants. Your thoughts highly appreciated. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Kayavak

Hello, there, I am the main author of Kayavak, and as you'll see by the time you're done reading this, my name is Belugaboy (you can see why I created this article). I'm not contesting your flagging of Kayavak, in fact, I respect your initiative. I'm just curious, how bad is it? How badly does it need help? And most importantly, how much more bad can it get? Thank you, I'm just looking for some insight. Warm regards, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 20:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, without looking at the citations yet, I'd say that about 70% of the article needs to be removed. Every time a statement is included in Wikipedia that can be "challenged", it should be verified by a reliable source. Now, maybe some of the sources already in the article may have some of that info, so it may be possible to re-use those, but I'll have to read them to find out

But now that I glance at it, there's a larger concern. I'm not entirely certain that those britannica blogs count as reliable sources. Later, I'll ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. If that's the case, then we need to remove them, and replace them with something else. If we can't, then I'm not entirely certain that the animal meets our notability guidelines.

However, I'm not going to have time to look at the article in detail for a week or three In the meantime, if you're still actively editing Wikipedia (I saw on the talk that at one point you were considering retiring), the best thing you could do would be to find more sources that talk about Kayavak, and add information from those sources. Note that the sources need to comply with WP:RS. Textual editing is easy, and I can handle that no problem, but if there aren't enough sources then the article itself may need to be significantly cut, and, if too little is left, possibly even deleted. Again, more sources will fix this for certain (or if the blog is considered reliable). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I created this article, and its life turned out much like Kayavak's herself. It was nominated for deletion shortly after being created, and I did everything in my power to save it. The deletion nomination was withdrew by the person who had nominated it. I was told there were plenty of reliable resources (see the deletion nomination page) and I used them (probably stupidly) to gain strength for this article. I've done many revamps, and a lot of my time is spent either testing out STiki or working on this article. I'm terribly sorry, but I'm not in the greatest mood, considering both of my fish croaked the other night, and now that I've seen your reply, I'm not too sure it can make it, just like they thought would happen with Kayavak. But like the aquarium staff, we must not lose hope with this article. If we could work in collaboration to improve its resources then it maybe, just maybe, can survive. Thank you, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 20:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, just a side note, the Notability Guidelines state quote, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This whale was all over the news when she was a calf and throughout the 21st century, including into this decade when more than ever she'll have to act as a surrogate mother to Nunavik, a young whale whose mother, Puiji, recently died. So that should give her even more coverage in the media. This whale is notable, it's just the article seems like, for an encyclopedia, unacceptably essay-like. (guilty as charged, I am). Thanks, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 12:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your point about notability not being temporary is correct; what we need to do is provide citations for those news stories. Do you have any links, or at least publication info? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune all have numerous stories on Kayavak, as well as other papers such as one in Orange County and one in Seattle. I'll take information from there, replace it in the article, and cite the resources at my earliest convenience. Thanks for helping with this, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 12:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

pssst...

re: this edit

Risker is a "she". Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly, but you might want to tweak the pronoun there. Horologium (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadasivan etc

I am becoming increasingly concerned about the sourcing used by MatthewVanitas. It is he who has added stuff such as Sadasivan and it is becoming apparent that while the sources generally do support the statements made, the quality of some of those sources is suspect. He doesn't appear to be particularly active at the moment. I do recall that I found one other source, pre-dating Sadasivan, that supported the dog etymology at Nair (I linked to it on the talk page somewhere) but I think that we may have to start being a bit more slavish in following rules regarding multiple sourcing on these contentious points.

As an example of similarly introduced material, I recall raising various concerns about the use of the Enthoven and Russell/Lal books on various articles but did not follow them through because prima facie they did support the statement and were cited contextually correct manner. I will revisit those two books. The daft things is, every criticiser is still of the opinion that I introduced all of this type of stuff when in fact I am generally not keen on old works unless there is absolutely nothing else available to support an existing comment. An exception to my rule was the use of Panikker at Nair, which proved to be very useful because he was a member of the community.

FWIW, I am also concerned about the use of the Anthropological Survey of India, as I think Fowler is also. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It may well be that MV was using borderline sources. Or, even more likely, Sadasivan appears on the surface to be a real researcher, publishing reliable books, and it was only through deeper analysis that he was found to be questionable. Nothing wrong with progressive improvements. I doubt MV was working out of bad faith in any way, but that doesn't mean that his edits are any less subject to change or removal than anyone else's.

On all of these articles, I am more than happy to become even more stringent on sources--however, and I know you agree with me on this, we have to do so in all cases, not selectively. That is, we're not going to go hell-bent on removing all of the "negative" sources without also slicing away at the "positive" sources as well. In all my work on WP, I would almost always like to have less, well sourced info than more questionable material. If that means, for example, that in some cases we have no "varna" section in some of these articles, so be it.

Speaking of concerns:

• I'm very concerned at Fowler&fowler's latest comments on Talk:Jat people; I'll be commenting there shortly. Maybe, though I just misunderstand him.
• I'm not in any way concerned with the DRN on Yadav.
• I do need to do what I said I would do wrt Rao...will try to get to today.
• Not sure yet if I'm going to comment on the ANI re:Gyanvigan1. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there is/was no bad faith involved. When so many related articles definitely need so much cleaning up, it is inevitable that some iffy choices will slip through the net, with the positive being that at least some sourcing is in place where previously none existed. The situation has not been helped by my poor access to sources such as Enthoven and Sadasivan, and therefore difficulties in reviewing such things when introduced by others. However, I have recently been using a US proxy to get better access to GBooks etc: it is a bit flakey but generally is helping me quite a lot. While WP:RX is a great thing, I can't be running there every day. Specifically with regard to Sadasivan, I feel that it is an odd situation: I am very uncomfortable about the whole issue surrounding him - we're either ditching a good source because of one or two peculiarities and a lot of angst from the members of various communities, or we've been using a bad source and causing unwitting offence to quite a lot of people. A no-win situation, but we probably should err on the side of caution & remove him from pretty much everything unless his position is supported by another RS.

As for the comments by Fowler, well, I am not particularly attracted to image-related matters: I wouldn't be able to determine a good, representative image for pretty much anything, although I can sometimes spot ones that are clearly not good or representative. I am something of a visual philistine, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that F&f seems to be arguing that Jat people refers primarily or possibly only to people from the late 19th century (those that clearly identified as Jats and worked for collective political recognition), and that those claiming Jats today don't deserve significant prominence, if any inclusion at all, in the article. As I said on the talk, I'm sincerely hoping that I've misunderstood him. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

DRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Yadav". Thank you. attention ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into it. FYI, I reformmated your title/comment, because it messes up my Table of Contents to have the title be so long; I kept all of the info, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinion

Greetings. I'd once again appreciate your opinion, this time on the matter here: ([8]). I believe the other editor means well but perhaps can't see the logic in the argument. That said, a fresh pair of eyes may be just the ticket. I hope you can help. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I realize you are busy with some more heated matters, but please don't overlook this one.

Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just forgot about this one; I've commented now, and watchlisted the page. You'll see that my suggestions are perhaps even more radical than your own. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll give it a day or so and then make a few discrete changes. I can't find any direct links between the SN and Lovecraft, and despite what one well-meaning editor claims, as per the entire Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture page there must be a source (and as I was the one who took the time to source the entire page I feel there needs to be consistency). I also agree on the other matters - we've made a good start on some articles, but a great deal of the Lovecraft materials needs rationalising. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Abusive IP Editor

I believe you've already blocked this guy once for abusive editing under a different IP address [9]. Still continuing in the same vein [10] but now adding removing sources to his repertoire. [11] greeted me this morning and now he's edit warring on my talk page to restore abusive comments and expand on them [12]. I have explained the reason for my reverts but when I get abuse like that in response my patience is limited. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You haven't explained your reverts. You're stalking my edits because you didn't like my trivial improvement to Falklands War. I am not removing sources. Stop stalking me; stop being dishonest. 200.104.120.204 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

[13] Report for edit warring. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken care of through 3RRNB. IP, if you come back here either later or on a different IP address, you claim you know the rules. Well, in that case, follow them: be civil, don't edit war, etc. When you have disputes, use calm, reasonable language on the article talk page. You'll find that you may actually get somewhere for once. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster is having no problems at all edit warring. Is he exempt from the policy? 200.104.120.204 (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In a quick look through his contributions, I don't see any edit warring. However, WCM is very prolific, so perhaps I've overlooked something. Please indicate which article(s) he is edit warring on (along with dates, if it was some time in the past), and I'll take a look. Two notes: I'm not the one who blocked you for edit warring (that was some other editor as a result of the 3RRRNB report), and I blocked you for disruptive editing/harassment, not edit warring, on the older IP address. Nonetheless, I am willing to look into your complaint if you can just point me in the right direction. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

eg within the last 4 days Ian Gow: "rv IP edits", [14], [15], Falklands War: [16], [17], [18]. The edits to Ian Gow followed those to the Falklands, which somehow offended him enough that he began reverting all my edits without any sensible explanation. Eg Pseudorandom number generator, where I made a number of edits, with summaries as follows:

• These two quotes do not explain or clarify anything. Their relevance and their necessity to the lead is not clear.
• "not limited to" is unnecessary legalese, it's inherent in the word "include". Also "absurdly" is pov, the flaw needs describing and citation to show its effect is required
• this makes the following clearer
• more encyclopaedic tone
• article title or alternative names only are bolded in the lead.

He decided to undo all of that work, in its entirety, quite obviously as a result of the Falklands grudge, leaving the edit summary "rs sources removed".

Has he received any kind of sanction or even warning for this? No. Did he encounter any obstruction when he decided to attack me by pointlessly reverting all my edits? No. If no-one tells him that vandalising articles is wrong, will he carry on? You answer that one. 200.104.120.204 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the details. I have, in fact, now warned WCM on his talk page. In the future, both of you need to stop edit warring--you crossed 3RR on Ian Gow, and WCM hit 4 reverts at 25 hours. Now, had I been the admin to review the 3RRNB report, I'm not entirely certain what I would have done. But what you two should both due in the future is, when there is disagreement about some edit, take it to the article talk page. In a technical sense the burden lies more heavily on the person who makes the change initially (per the not-policy-but-regularly-followed WP:BRD). But whatever the situation, if you find yourself at 2RR, just stop a second, and go the talk page, and things will work much better. For example, I think your changes to Falklands War were, if not perfect, at least much better than what was there before, and I believe (because I still like to think the best of WP editors, despite so much evidence to the contrary) that if you had discussed it there, that your version (or something like it) would have prevailed. And, yes, you both need to be more civil--WCM needs to stop reverting you with the rationale that you're just an IP editor, and you need to stop calling people retarded, stupid, and other such terms. "Can't we all just get along?" Qwyrxian (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

[19] Is this an acceptable response? I did not revert him just because he was an IP editor, that is his presumption and I am rather appalled with your lack of good faith in accepting it uncritically. With respect I do not consider his edits on Ian Gow an improvement. Had he discussed it on the talk page, it would have been quickly resolved, but on each an every occasion he edit wars to get his own way on the article, whether it is improved or not and he is not prepared to compromise - he is adamant his edits are an improvement and if you happen to disagree you're a fucking idiot. Look at his actions on the block expiring, did he talk it to talk? No, he reverted straight away [20] only for another editor to disagree [21]

You ask me to talk to the guy but how can you have a mature discussion on content if the guy's response is to turn around and call you a "fucking idiot" and presumes my editing is as a result of a grudge? In addition, if you check his contribution history you will find that I did not revert all of his edits, just those where there was not an improvement to the article. Also if you take a gander at User talk:Wee Curry Monster I have removed several abusive messages from this editor. How would you suggest I respond? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) Addendum: And as regards his edit on Falklands War, I suggest you re-read it, as the edit gave the impression Prince Andrew was part of the press pack - and I'm not the only editor to see that [22]. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) BTW I only had 3 reverts in total on Ian Gow, I presume you're including the BOT edit by mistake? I didn't come close to crossing the line. As regards the Falklands War edits are you confusing User:Antandrus' edit with the IP? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You were, and remain, a fucking idiot, You're a despicable liar

Now I have your attention, could you explain how I'm supposed to discuss in a mature fashion, someone who turns round and calls you a "fucking idiot" for no good reason? [23]

As regards Ian Gow, you claim I made 4 reverts, I did not, I made 3 and no more than 2 in a 24 hr period. I would appreciate you reviewing your warning in that light please. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I did miscount on Ian Gow--you only had 3 reverts. I'll make a correction on your user talk. The warning for edit warring still stands, because no matter what the provocation, unless you are dealing with one of the very specific exceptions listed at WP:3RR, you can't edit war.

Thanks, though, for raising the most recent comment--I've blocked the IP for a week this time. See here's my overall point: if someone else acts badly, the solution to the problem is to act nicely, following the rules. If the other person continues to act badly, they'll get blocked. Then there is no taint for you. Similarly, if the other person's edits genuinely are bad, someone else will come along sooner or later and revert them along with you, compelling the "bad" person to either edit war or actually discuss the issue on the talk page.

Minor side note: I still think the IP's edits to Falklands War are a clear and obvious improvement [24]. While his version has non-ideal grammar, it, in fact, cannot mean that Prince Andrew was traveling, grammatically speaking, because we know that the verb "resulted in" requires a sentence as a complement; that sentence has a subject ("two journalists who were interested only in Queen Elizabeth II's son Prince Andrew,") but no verb until after the intervening clause, thus we know that the subject of "traveling" must be the journalists, not Prince Andrew. Now, it could have been better, but there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the sentence was both correct and unambiguously better than the prior POV one. And, again, even if you were right, the difference certainly doesn't justify 3 reverts on your part. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we shall have to disagree on the merits of that edit, as another editor independently agreed with me as I noted above. Hence, I do not see it as unambiguously better and more of a judgement call.

If check the IP's talk page, I did try to discuss things with him, except he removed the comment [25]. My comments were followed by User:Nageh with a 3RR warning and that was removed with another abusive comment [26].

Anyone who has tried to discuss the guy's edits, where they thought there was a problem has been subjected to abuse. I never once crossed the bright line, as it was down to judgement, and I tried to discuss it with him. Wee Curry Monster talk 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Article: Joseph Marinaccio

The reason I think he is notable as a person, as opposed to just the company is because he is the youngest ever CEO of a NASDAQ listed company at only 17 (seventeen, not a typo). That's something that I think is extremely notable. Truthfully even if the company was not public I think creating it would warrant the article. Also the Top 200 Mobile Executives is a nice addition as that was a pretty big convention that was held and the tech world was buzzing about it. Other names were the CEO of AT&T, CTO of Verizon, Google executives. I got a few more references including an outside interview and a press release from NASDAQ and I think the article should be recreated and kept up. If nothing, this article is on the fence and I would ask what the harm would be in creating it, as he has certainly done notable things it would not at all come across as lowing Wikipedia's standards.

Thanks, MDH326 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have references that verify that he is the youngest ever CEO to be listed on NASDAQ? If that could be verified, that would be probably be sufficient to demonstrate notability. See, the key is, that notability isn't defined by what you or I think is important, but by showing that reliable sources have discussed the person in detail. So if we can get sources that verify that claim, I think the article could be recreated. Let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, there is a press release issued by NASDAQ and there is a line that says he is the youngest ever CEO of a NASDAQ listed company. The press release is on Slam Content's website and one a PR distribution service's website. So it can be verified through the release. I can re post the article (I saved it), adding that he is the youngest CEO to the first few lines and cite the release. MDH326 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm...press releases generally aren't reliable....wait a minute. I just read that PRLog reference now (admins can see deleted content). That article is PR from Slam, not from NASDAQ, and, more importantly, doesn't verify notability at all. SLAM isn't public yet, nor ! They aren't even considering it yet! SLAM isn't a "NASDAQ listed" company--they're just a company that reserved a 4 letter NASDAQ symbol. That is not an indication of notability, it's just semi-true PR verbiage put out by Slam. So, unless you've got something in a reliable source, do not recreate the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A company can be NASDAQ listed without being public yet, they just have not yet offered an IPO and needless to say you wouldn't be able to get a symbol without being a more than reputable company, and while I understand it's a press release (put out by the company, I see now) I wouldn't at all say it isn't reliable, press releases are how companies make announcements. I have to say, part of me feels like being a public company vs. private company is only such a big deal. Between the company (private or public, although it is somewhat on the fence now), being a magazine publisher, the top 200 mobile tech. executives, they are all things that would warrant the article. In the end the article wouldn't come across as lowering Wikipedia's notability standards at all and I think having the article on someone as successful at a young age would, without a doubt, add to Wikipedia positively. Regardless of the public company vs. private company aspect. MDH326 (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Press releases aren't reliable because no one independent of the company has checked to verify the facts in it. For all I know, there was a 13 year old with 7 NASDAQ listed companies already on NASDAQ. When PRlog or other PR sites re-print the press release, they don't check to make sure any of the statements are accurate. As such, unless the information is verified in an actual reliable soruce it can't be included in WP. Also, I think you're confusing the every day definition of "notable" with the Wikipedia definition, which is found at WP:N (or, more specifically for living people at WP:BIO). Unless Marinaccio meets our rules for notability, there cannot be an article about xyr on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, eventually more sources will come, it can wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDH326 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pages for review

Hello again Qwyrxian! I would like to ask if you could please check to see how close you think these articles are to being publishable: Dethcentrik , Død Beverte . Any edits you would make, etc. Thanks! BusyWikipedian (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have left a review on the talk pages of each draft. My quick opinion is that after a bit more cleanup Dethcentrik is ready for mainspace, but Beverte is not notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, made the changes you suggested for Dethcentrik, thank you very much! BusyWikipedian (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Saffron terror

Hi Qwyrxian, I've kinda reinstated the Sanatan Sanstha bit on Saffron terror article with this edit. I'm not sure if it is very notable in comparison with other events, so I guess you can take a call and revert if needed. Thanks, Lynch7 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Sanatan Sanstha. The article makes it clear (to me) that while some members of the organization have been accused of terrorism, the actual organization has not. Technically, that means that not only should the line not go into Saffron terror, it probably shouldn't even be in Sanatan Sanstha (it's trying to tar the organization with the actions of some of its members); that's a little more of a judgment call, so I'm goin to raise it on that article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that; these kinds of terrorism articles are a bit of a pain to work on, there's not much clarity (I guess its by virtue of being a sensitive topic). Lynch7 03:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you

Just a courtesy note. I mentioned you here --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bellator 55

Thanks for closing that. If you just redirect the named article, I'm happy to do the 56 others. Black Kite (t) 04:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tell you what--I'll start at 1, you can start at 59, and we'll work our way to the middle. We also have to change the "class" on the Wikiproject template on the Talk pages to "redirect". I've already done Bellator 1, so just 56 to go :). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh, they don't have a redirect class for their Wikiproject...I guess I'll just leave the talk pages alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I would actually be tempted to delete the talkpages where they've only got WikiProject tags on them, they're not serving any useful purpose, since they're redirected they're useless to the Project and if they exist we're supposed to add {{Old AfD multi}} to them ... Black Kite (t) 04:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'll go back and do that (delete them) now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you need an Old AFD multi template there's one to copy at Talk:Bellator 56. Black Kite (t) 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just switched to deleting them per G6. After you mentioned it, it seemed better; especially, on a number of the Season Two episodes, they have wikiprojects for the City/State the competition was held. No reason to have those projects have to have such an article on their rolls. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

#56 needed one because there was content on the page apart from WP tags. I've only found one other. Black Kite (t) 04:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And it looks like we've met in the middle--excellent! Thanks for the help. That template should be deleted; I don't know MfD well so I'm going to have to check to see if there's a speedy criteria or if it has to go through MfD, but I'll nominate whichever way is appropriate. First I want to be sure to get all 55 on my watchlist so that I'll see if they're un-redirected (as I'm worried they might be, given that it's not immediately obvious why the page is only a redirect, especially for a new user). 04:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the template so it just points to the seasons. All done now I think - thanks.Black Kite (t) 04:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine solution by me. Whew....I thinks that's actually the only the first or second AfD that I've closed. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They're usually not that much work :) Tip: use the AFD closing script (User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js), it does all the hard work - though unfortunately it doesn't work on multi-noms like this one! Black Kite (t) 04:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Burki

Qwyrxian, you were going to resolve the matter, these were false promises as you did nothing, you cannot be allowed to hijack this site, please advise what is your role or qualificaiton on the Subject? We do not interefer in your INDIAN History lessons, so why are you interfering on these??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011khan (talk • contribs)

I am an editor and administor here on Wikipedia. All editors on Wikipedia asked to make sure that all content in Wikipedia articles follows our rules. The information you are adding vioaltes WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:EL and WP:RS. I recommend that you review our policies. I have tried to politely help you. I added information about the genocide to the article Logar Province. I was unable to add it Burki, because I could not find any reliable sources to verify that the people murdered where Burki. Without such evidence, the claims may not be added. I did not violate any provinces--I added the information I found into the correct place on Wikipedia. Finally, as I told you on your talk page, if you continue to add information that is unsourced or otherwise improper for Wikipedia I will request that you be blocked from editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am very sorry but I question your Admin and Editor qualifications. I have checked the YouTube reference and as the reader is redirected to YouTube there is no quesiton of copyright. If there is a copyright viloation then that is the hosts (YouTube's) responsibility, in this case YouTube.

For those Admins who lack common sence, then I ask them to show me proof of one YouTube video which has been qualified as COMPLIANT, and show me the Proof of this compliance on the Wiki Discussion Page. Wippocryt...

Here is the reference from Wiki which is very clear, kindly revert what you have deleted to correct your mistake.

Wikipedia:WikiProject External links

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify additional software necessary for readers to view the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011khan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for asking that, but how comfortable are you with English? In the very lines you quoted me, it says, "Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to." If we are at all unsure of the copyright status of a video (or anything else for that matter) we must not link to it. Period. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you have not seen the videos and cannot read Pashto, if you could you would see the producers name Burki and would also notice that they are home videso and not CNN newscasts.

Buddy, you need to prove to me that the maker of this video has copyrighted the material. In fact just find me a copyright lawyer or a regular lawyer for that matter in that whole region. You are out of your debth along with the rest of your remote controll buddies, you are absolutely not qualified to Wiki Admin this Page any more. This really shows the Faschistic nature of Wiki Administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2011khan (talk • contribs) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks. Doing so is grounds for a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

In any event, lets assume for the moment that copyright isn't an issue (I'm not saying it isn't, but just pointing out that there are more problems). Who made the videos? What qualifies them as a reliable source? What is their history of making independent, reliable editorial judgments? Note that the exceptions for SPS can't be extended to say "These are Burki people talking about Burki, so they don't have to follow normal RS." The SPS exception is for when a person writes a blog about themselves, or for when a company writes about itself on its own website. Unless it meets WP:RS, it can't be used. If you aren't sure if it meets WP:RS, we have a reliable sources noticeboard where you can ask. If you only want to include it as an External link (not a source), then it has to meet the requirements of WP:EL. I haven't watched the video yet, but, I will let you know that videos nearly never qualify as valid EL. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

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. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've replied to your question on ANI [27]. I realize you have a lot on your plate, but is there some way to move forward with this? Thanks. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I just left a note. One problem is that Gyanvigan1 hasn't edited WP at all since before you opened the thread. This may well be related to Diwali, which, as far as I can tell, just ended yesterday in India. I'd like to hear whether or not xe's interested in mentorship or if xe's absolutely certain that xe's 100% right. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Shock! There are some paid editors out there

I found the IP response at 18:29 here to be quite amusing. I have since offered to accept $2 per NPA revert, undercutting the IP & doing no harm to the project. In the present environment that I'm working in, I'd have a new motorbike by the end of the year! (And, to you stalkers out there, this is a sarcastic message and does not imply that I am paid to edit anything). - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian

Thank you very much. you have assisted me in understanding what the issue is. I appreciate it. Thank you. --Editor2205 (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) moved from User:Qwyrxian - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat past this, but...

Hey Qwyrxian, at AN/I, you posted this[28], to which I responded with this[29]. I amended this[30] to it just in case you'd perceived anything other than frustration in its tone. As much as I don't like my actions so misportrayed, I'm somewhat past that. But in light of efforts such as those, I am still baffled why you see my intent as such? Is it simply that you hadn't had time to catch up on everything on the article's image talk page? Or is it you missed the ad-hominems from Ludwigs2 that started the tone of my responses to him? Or is it something else? I am really curious, as I do not like being at odds with any editor who tries to contribute in good faith (much less one I've had (and still have) a good deal of respect for over the years). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into this tomorrow (quite late here). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains why I see you more often in the middle of my night (I'm too very much a night person). Have a wonderful night, and talk soon. -Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I think what caught my eye was this comment on 27 October that seemed to imply an RfC was unnecessary. But upon revisiting the talk page I see that you did, in fact, try to restart the RfC several times. And what I see is that you're getting caught in the middle of several bad contributors; at times Ludwigs2 implies that an RfC is or at least should be unnecessary given the resolution (which is wrong, as that resolution is open to interpretation), and Tarc openly states very negative things about xyr opponents. I should have done a better job when reviewing the threads before adding my post to ANI, rather than picking out one out of context diff. Your response on ANI to me was absolutely understandable and not at all out of line. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, no apologies necessary (though appreciated nonetheless). As I mentioned, that page has turned into a winding nightmare that'd take hours or more to thoroughly read through - and I've seen you around more than long enough to know it was simply an honest mistake. Especially in light of that, my tone could have been better - but I let my frustration get the better of me - so, my apologies in return. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note, I have an idea that may solve this and create an actual RfC that everyone involved can agree on. It's a crazy idea, perhaps... but it just might work. I'd like your input on it when I move it from my computer to my userspace. After that, if all looks well, perhaps we can present it to everyone else involved - or you can tell me I'm off my rocker (which, as this is a crazy idea, perhaps I am - which also means I'd have to go out and buy a rocker). I'll let you know when I move it from off-Wiki. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to let me know...anything to get past the stalemate and sidestep bad actors on both sides. If it's something you'd prefer to do off-wiki first, you can do that to (unless it's full of wikilinks, then it may be hard to follow). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images

Please stop pushing these inaccuracies around: "that by including so many images from a very narrow time period and fairly narrow interpretation of Islam we are in fact violating WP:UNDUE)." It has been pointed out several times that the 6 images now used include Sunni and Shiah (at least 2 of each) and cover a timespan of over 500 years. Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

1. File:Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg: from 1307, from the Jami' al-tawarikh, in the Ilkhanate period.
2. File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg: 1315, same book as number 1 (not sure why the dates are different; worth investigating later).
3. File:Muhammad destroying idols - L'Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg: from 1808, Persian Kashmir
4. File:Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg: 1595, Ottoman, though the from the Siyer-i Nebi (book earlier, illustrations at time noted)
5. File:Maome.jpg: 17th century Ottoman copy of 14th century Ilkhanate book (originally written around 1000, but apparently illustrated in the Ilkhanate period)
6. File:Gagarin PropovedMagometGRM.jpg 19th century Russian French painting, by a non-Muslim (this is the one I most consider to be ridiculous in this article)

So, that's 6 images. 2 are from the same book. 3 are from the same time period (Ilkhanate), and a 4th is also Persian, though 5 centuries later. q more is Ottoman, and about 300 years after first. 1 that has no business in the article at all (and, if memory serves, the one that most others have objected to as well).

So, I see, first, and over-emphasis on the Ilkhanate period (half of the images). Second, I see a very specific area of the world being represented, with no representation of pictures from the rest of the Muslim world (i.e., the Arabic portion). Thus, while the time range may be wide, I do say an imbalance that violates WP:UNDUE. Is it terrible? No. Should it be corrected? Yes. Would the article benefit from fewer pictures? Yes, I think so, but that's an issue to be solved at an RfC. As a side note, I don't know how you determined which sect of Islam the images are from, apologies if I simply didn't see something in the discussions (keeping up with that talk page is nearly impossible). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just bizarre!!!! I have corrected the basic mistakes in your list, but I won't attempt to address your reasoning after that. The two Ottoman images are from the purely Sunni environment of the court; the 1595 one was we know commissioned by the Caliph of the day. After looking into it again, I'm now less clear the 14th century images are in fact Shia, as the ruler converted from Sunni to Shia between the two dates, but what his vizier who commissioned the images did I'm not sure. Since I don't know about the Kashmiri one, they could all be Sunni in fact. How are Turkey, India and Persia a "very specific area of the world"? But I won't go on. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to comment on this. The Kashmiri miniature is found in a Persian poetry book. Also, the influence of the Persian miniature tradition on the Turkish one is uncontested, as many Persian artists moved to Istanbul. So the Indian and Turkish examples are still heavily influenced by Persian styles/traditions. Now, concerning the sect of the 5 images:

1. The poem Hamla i-Haydari is definitely Shi'ite and has been described as a "Shi'ite mathnawi" (mathnawi is a form of Persian poetry). See Inventory of the Oriental Manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden by J. J. Witkam. Also the two flames in the right-hand page presumably depict the Prophet and Imam Ali.
2. The one from the Chronology of Nation is Shi'ite too. According to R. Hilllenbrand, the illustrated version of the Chronology exhibits themes of extremist and partisan Shi'ite (i.e., ghulat). Source: Hillenbrand, Robert (2001-02). Persian Painting: From the Mongols to the Qajars. I. B. Tauris. ISBN 1850436592. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Concerning Jami' al-Tawarikh, the ruler who commissioned the later chapters became a Shi'i sometimes between the two dates. His choice of illustrations/themes could very much be a reflection of his Shi'a beliefs. But unlike the previous two images, we can't be 100% sure of this. Also the Vizier was executed later (for poisoning his ruler) and buried as a Jewish man (with some sources suggesting that he had faked a conversion to Islam). I've also seen historians suggesting a strong Jewish influence in these paintings.
4. For Siyer-i Nebi, I'm not sure about the Sunni milieu claim. Some Sultans privately held deviant views regardless of what milieu they lived in. So unless we know a thing or two about their religious beliefs, or know which or how events are depicted, we can't be sure. According to Siyer-i Nebi, the text was based on al-Waqidi, who is not looked upon favorably in Sunni sources. In any case, the Sultan Murad III commissioned this work for his son, so it was probably just a Children's book (with no intention of accurate representation of events).

In short, 2 images are Shi'ite and the other 2 are probably Shi'ite. The last one is possibly Sunni. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Here we go again! More OR wriggling.

1) Maybe so, though I wish the information came from a less partisan source than yourself - I agree the Prophet is shown twice.

2) Hillenbrand is describing the original Persian manuscript. There is no reason to say the Turkish copy of the image from several centuries later is made in a Shiite context, & this is most unlikely.

3) Maybe so, maybe not. What would a "strong Jewish influence in these paintings" mean, given that one thing I'm sure we can agree on is that there was no medieval Jewish tradition of figurative & narrative painting?

4) Having seen a number of accounts of this work, none mention Murad's son as the recipient. If this was his successor Mehmed III, he had succeeded to the throne at the age of 30 by the time the MS was finished. The idea that this 6 volume work illustrating a lengthy poem was a "children's book" is frankly ridiculous. Incidently, the text was a Sunni Turkish poem commissioned by a Sunni Mamluk sultan, based on an intermediate Sunni Arabic version of the Sunni Arabic original. No doubt you still regard it as "Persian" and Shia. Gruber p. 251 specifically mentions the text in the context of C16th efforts "to strengthen the Ottoman Sunni cause".

Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

1) I'm relying on the assessment of J. J. Witkam, not my own. 2) Hillenbrand did not make any distinction between the Turkish and Ilkhanid copies when linking that manuscript to partisan Shi'a. You'll need to cite a reliable source for your claim. 3) I've seen some historians compare the images of Jami' al-Tawarikh to the one found in the Dura-Europos synagogue (see the bottom of that page). 4) You're again relying on the fringe theories of Gruber and ignoring the works of other historians. The only extensive study of the subject was by Zeren Tanındı who mentioned that it was commissioned by the Sultan to his son. She also noted that the work carries many Shi'a themes that the Sunni court at the time merely tolerated. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just of the top of my head - now 3) really is fringe! 1,000 years earlier!! Gruber is totally mainstream, for all you don't like her findings. There are several monographs on the Siyer; given the son was presumably one of the sultan's squad of adult ones, it has no bearing on the issue at hand - this is not a children's book. PS: Apart from the last sentence, which was already there, I wrote the passage at Dura-Europos synagogue that you refer me to. It contains nothing that supports such a tradition suddenly popping up 1,000 years later. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Many historians suggested that the Jewish background of Rashid al-Din could have affected these paintings. You should also read the paper that made this specific comparison. Now compare how Gruber turned every work which lacks extremist Shi'a themes into a piece of Sunni-propaganda (against the findings of many other historians and without any concrete evidence whatsoever). We also know that most of the illustrated Mi'rajnamas produced in the Qajar period were children books. Siyer-i Nabi looks like a children book, and was commissioned by the Sultan for his son. In any case, we need not to bother Qwyrxian with your denial (on multiple issues, sadly). Take it elsewhere if you wish. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 04:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if only because I think this has passed the point where I can give useful input; I am not familiar with any of those books, and have been going based on what I could easily examine from the online sites and the WP info itself. It still seems to me that this vastly under-represents the major portions of Muslim socio-history (the Arabic, African, and to a lesser extent the modern East Asian portions), but this is an issue that will need to be sorted out on the article's talk page (if we can ever get to that point). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)