User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

indiafirst life redirect

thanks for the redirect Siddharthmukund (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

You have a request at RFPP. [1] Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Qwyrxian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— KC9TV 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I read it, but you'll need to post that information here. Info about Wikipedia should be posted in public view so that others can see. I see you leaving a lot of YGMs, and this inhibits communal discussion. I will take a look at the article history you mentioned later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the original content and content in question was not even supposed to be upon (on) Wikipedia anyway, until, that was, one of the Users, probably being a smoker, and not of your ordinary "マイルドセブン " either, judging form the User-boxes, decided otherwise. Also see this, at [2]. I thank you. Yours, — KC9TV 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy is in WP:EMAIL, which says, "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). " I believe that Chilllllls post is within the boundaries of what is acceptable under the allowance for summarizing the email. The quotation is a bit borderline, but not too unreasonable. I'll live Chilllls a note indicating xe should not do that in the future. If it really really bothers you, I'll redact the actual quotation (but not RevDel, as it doesn't meet and RD criteria). Let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cigarette_holder#Japanese_fashion_"hoax".

Is this actually a hoax? Your comment would be most welcome. I thank you. Yours, — KC9TV 23:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• User:99801155KC9TV, you are shopping this awfully hard. Perhaps too hard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not actually "out" any-one. Full stop. And, anyway, if you know the answer, you are more than welcome to that discussion. — KC9TV 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Seinfeld has no "Production" section.

This is a message from the talk page: In addition to the other GA issues, there is no "Production" section giving the nuts-and-bolts, real-life production of the show: Where and when it was filmed, who the key writers, producers and other personnel were, how the casting process went, etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC) I'll accept that nothing will ever change on Seinfeld given the edits up to this point. I won't force anyone to do anything but I do wish that sooner or later the page should be protected to prevent anymore changes happening. As for the production, it might be a thoughtful proposal. I just need time to think before I check for resources to help with that. I don't want to say this but anymore reverting changes and I'll give up editing on Seinfeld completely. What's the point of editing if no-one likes change? Sorry if that sounds personal but that would be the point if that continues to happen. Anyway, you have more important things to deal with so answer me when you have time. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

We will never protect the article so that no more changes can happen. That is the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works. The only time we ever protect a page so that no one can edit is temporarily when there is an edit war that need to be stopped. Even featured articles, which are articles that have undergone extensive review and are considered the "best" of what we have to offer, are kept open for editing (though, of course, many articles are sometimes semi-protected so that non-confirmed (IP) editors can't edit them.

Of course, that doesn't mean that all changes will be accepted. I had to revert you because the change you made just didn't make sense, grammatically speaking, and I didn't understand what you were trying to say enough to fix it myself.

Yes, a production section is a good idea, assuming there are sources to support it (there probably are, in commentary on the official DVDs, or other approved documents). I agree the article shouldn't be given GA status without such a section. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It may take me some time to find sources through official DVDs since I've exhausted attempts on the web. I need a reminder in putting a DVD reference in. I understand that the Seinfeld article would never be protected but it doesn't help if I'm continue to be left in the cold when it comes to what I can and cannot edit. So in that case doing the production would help me work on Seinfeld article at least one last time. Afterwards, you and Hearfourwesique won't hear from me anymore. That's my promise. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Available for a histmerge?

Hi Qwyrxian, I'm not sure if you have visited WikiProject Cooperation lately, or seen my recent discussion at Paid Editor Help, but I recently produced three drafts intended to replace the current Commodity Pool Operator, Commodity trading advisor and Managed futures account articles.

Following close review (involving members of WikiProject Finance) and a few of rounds of edits, the reviewing editors agree that they're now ready to take live. I wonder if you would be able to help do a histmerge for the articles? You can see the three drafts are in my user space as follows:

• User: WWB Too/Commodity Pool Operator
• User: WWB Too/Commodity trading advisor
• User: WWB Too/Managed futures account

Each is ready to move over, although the categories will need to be fixed in each case. If you're able to help, it would be most appreciated but if you're not able to, could you suggest someone else who could? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Done! See my question at the Paid Editor help page, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw your exchange with John M Baker, and good call about the CPO capitalization, and left a short note there as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Pat Light

I forgot to remove that line in deleting; meant to just do A7. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is what you meant, then you were very wrong. None of those articles qualify for A7--being drafted by a major league team is undoubtedly a claim of importance. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The alesha show

if you check the BPI website you will see that it is only certifed GOLD NOT PLATINUM SEE FOR YOURSELF!!! --Mr JKX (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Give me the link. The reference I saw distinctly says it is certified platinum. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

this also confirms that the entertainer is not silver just type alesha dixon in the search box

new section

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 "Sondra Locke". Thank you. --Canoe1967 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nair article

Kindly peruse my latest comment on nayar page regarding the discussion on Gough citation. Thanks.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly do that, though it may take me a day or so to give a substantive response. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mayasutra's behaviour in the Iyengar:talk page

Hello Qwyrxian, let me first deal with the other user's behaviour, and then i'll go for formal mediation. I guess i've been too patient. First of all, users editing in the "Iyengar page", who repeatedly fail to adhere to any expected standards of behavior are likely to be imposed with sanctions. The general sanctions template is placed on top of the Iyengar talk page. Inspite of that, "user:Mayasutra" has been repeatedly using names in talk page discussions, and that too in a way that maligns the other user(s), which is considered very offensive in wiki'. I'm wondering as to why this user is still allowed to edit as he has crossed the line long back and is still continuing to do so. Although i've used his name, i did so, only while replying to his messages so that other users might not take it on themselves. But i've always maintained a civil tone unlike user:mayasutra. Let me list out his behaviour here:

• First of all, he's posting diff of the edits i made 3 years ago, and is pointing out the mistakes, thereby maligning me. At that time(3 yrs back), I was new to wiki' and made some obvious errors. Posting the diff' of those edits, and trying to convince the administrators reg' his stand is extremely cheap on his part. He also posted a link to my editlog here. Diff of his edit:[3]
  
• Attack on communities - Mayasutra said "there are some enthusiastic vadagalais propagating falsities, like racists. Diff:[4]." Having seen the general sanctions template, placed on top of that talk page, posting such comments should attract a considerably higher penalty than usual.
  

Attacks on other users(attacks on me in this case): Here are some of his(Mayasutra's) comments on me, in the Iyengar talk page:

• He said "...Hari7478 does not seem to have a background in the genetic sciences. It is useless to reason out any data with him." Diff of edits:[5]
• In another post, Mayasutra said "This being a talk page, Hari's blabbering is ok". Diff:[6]
  
• Again, he insults me by saying - "You are absolutely ignorant in genetics. You can blabber whatever you like here." Diff of edits:[7]
  
• And finally he made these coments on me - "People with half-baked or no knowledge on genetics, like Hari7478...". Diff of edits:[8]
  
• Above all, as you can see from the talk page discussions, he has been repeatedly posting the same message under various sections/topics, which is indeed spamming, and has been a prolonged troll.

Inspite of the bashing on me, i've been too patient, trying to concentrate on the contents and not on the other user. But i can't be a saint anymore. Despite knowing about the "general sancitons", and inspite of me requesting him to abstain from such behaviour in talk pages, he has been too offensive. I wonder why no action has been taken. I'll go for formal mediation, once this user gets the deserved judgement for what he did. This has been long due. Hari7478 (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to the exact same message above at my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What a mess. Multiple user's talk pages, ANI, Mediation...I may have time to look at this today, but no promises. RL is going to severely limit my WP access for the next week or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I handled it as best I could across the various venues and there is a certain calm. However, Round Two will commence, as sure as night follows day ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Locke

[9] Cheers.... I'm going for some tea. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page.
Message added 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Editor retention

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Editor retention. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ambedkar

I think that you may have just done slightly the wrong thing at B. R. Ambedkar. The contributor has been a bit of a nuisance today and there is a report outstanding at WP:3RRNB. However, after introducing the Gyan source (twice) they have recently converted it to a non-Gyan source. You have reverted back to Gyan - compare here, which is immediately prior to your revert.

I couldn't delete Gyan due to 3RR, so the problems go back a little further. They include repeated removal of maintenance tags that appear to be reasonable given the unresolved issues on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Currently working Geisha

Hi Qwyrxian,

Let's work this deal with the 'Geisha' page out. My agenda here is to show who is currently working as a geisha, but here it seems like there are only Ibu and Fukutaro. I know Sayuki is operating as a geisha in Tokyo, I have seen the banquets advertised on the internet, and it also says in the provided reference. In regards to Liza Dalby - my intentions are definitely not to downplay her achievements, I have great respect for her books and here work. But she never received pay for attending the geisha banquets. She also never debuted officially as a proper geisha. So having it say on the page that she worked as a geisha is.. well it is not true right?

It is kind of frustrating to keep having my changes reverted and I'd like to know what I can do to do it properly.

--Spikey8D (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just remembering wrong, but I thought there was already a consensus that your interpretation of Dalby is just that--your interpretation, and is not supported by reliable sources, several of which call her the first foreign geisha. You've been around long enough to know that you cannot draw your own conclusions, you can't choose to ignore some sources just because you like other ones, and that you can't edit against consensus. That's why I reverted you. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there has been a lot of old discussion on the talk pages about the issue with no clear consensus, none of the conversations I was involved in. I was following what it says on Liza Dalby's own page: "She performed at ozashiki without charging money, and from the experience formed friendships and relationships with geisha in the district". In any case I believe there to be no dispute over the fact that she did not formally debut as a geisha. I'll assume you didn't take issue with the rest of the changes that also got reverted at the same time regarding Sayuki currently actively working as a geisha, and I will restore them. Please let me know your thoughts when you return. --Spikey8D (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Taken a liberty

I have set up User:Sitush/Common and incorporated a modified version of a post that you made yesterday on someone's talk page. I am going to develop this boilerplate page because it will make it easier for me consistently to explain points in messages & will provide suitably short links for use in edit summaries. Feel free to add/amend to the page - there will be entries concerning Indic scripts and List of X caste/BLP issues when I get round to it, but doubtless there are more. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me; you can then either direct people to it, or just copy and paste out of it (I think Anna Frodesiak has a huge page of standard messages she pulls out of). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Black and Red Alliance

Off course, neutral opinions should be included on the first line of an article. Thanks.Alexikoua (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPN

Just a courtesy note that I mentioned your name there. The specific thread is WP:BLPN#Ghazal Omid; I've done what I can, but I don't have access to some of what she needs people to check, so I figured I'd look for a fresh set of eyes (and I must say, I'm surprised yours didn't melt out of your sockets from that). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. For the moment, I'm going to stay out of it. While I don't think Omid bears me any ill will, I'm hoping that someone else will be able to explain things to her--I think that maybe my communication style may somehow not be matching hers, which may be causing extra frustration. Should no outside help be forthcoming, I'll see what I can do. I do sincerely appreciate the help you've given thus far! Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

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 "Craig Thomson affair". Thank you. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads-up

I mentioned you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could you kindly mediate in an edit war between Mewulwe and myself concerning the George Saitoti article?. I think you know the editor in question and may be better placed to understand the rationale for his edits because I don't. Thanks.Thuralt (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but for the next week or so, I'm going to have very limited WP time...you may want to try to find someone more active. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I had a little time this morning, and the issue was simple enough, so I left a comment on Mewulwe's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As of today the issue remains unresolved even after taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard. It has morphed in complexity and I thought you might maybe want to contribute. Your views and those of other editors are welcome.Thuralt (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Danceking again.

May be of interest. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw this too late to do anything about it. I believe you were correct and the repeated WP:IDHT deserves blocking, but it's not worth re-raising now. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Request to Undelete Page

Hello! I was told (by User: Mdann52 on my talk page) I should contact you to undelete Steve Charles, MD which you deleted due to copyright violations. The owner of the copyright infringed info has given wikipedia permission through the email template. User Mdann52 said he will place the OTRS template for me and Nathan2055 has marked my request as needing administrator attention. How should I proceed? Lunaweb (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would fix the copyright problem, though I'm not sure it would mean the article should be kept, as nothing in the article establishes the person's notability. Nonetheless, I can undelete it (I'll have to then movie it to Steve Charles (doctor), since we don't put post-nomial academic initials in article titles (or, actually, in articles themselves). I'll look into doing so later tonight. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

1:1 private counsel requested

The etymology section is too short to be a standalone section as-is. The present statement in etymology section - “most of them have been described as being of unsatisfactory credibility” is based on the footnote in a translated travelogue!! (and not based on a scientific-peer-reviewed publication) and hence of inadequate credibility in both content and citation (as reliable scientific publication exists). Therefore, the etymology section warrants improvement. A re-negotiated consensus (of multiple users) on Nayar etymology has presently emerged. This is based on laws of philology underlying Dravidian and Prakristic languages that was presented in a scientific publication (in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland/JRAGBI by K.M Panicker).

The credibility of the afore-mentioned research publication is self-evident from the fact that it has been cited 17 times in the present version of Nayar article. During talk, no user has provided any credible substantiation “why” this proposed JRAGBI publication should not be merited and “why” merit needs to be searched elsewhere. Further, no user has provided any opposing scientific-peer-reviewed research publication that discredits the content (Nagar-Nayar conclusion) of the JRAGBI article. In addition it is also consented by User: Pprasadnair and User: vekramaditya. Therefore JRABGI content and reference takes eminence over present content and citation. Taken together, the above facts, incorporation of changes to etymology section is requested.

Since we have already a mechanism via protection/administrator (to prevent disruptive editing), unwarranted POVs of certain good-intentioned users such as “the article is already close to perfect now, it hardly needs any change”!! (WP:OWN), repeated usages of “you cannot have your way here” to multiple users, etc is becoming counter-productive to improving individual sections of the article because it is leading to filibustering (by evading core-points in discussion). My genuine fear (due to such comments on talk pages) is that you may have been made to believe that the present article does not require any further improvising mutations – which you can see, due to the reasons stated above, is not the case in the etymology context.

I therefore kindly request your 1 to 1 neutral counsel either on my user talk page or here on how to handle this specific situation. Sorry for the inconvenience.

In anticipation of your kind reply.Thanks in advance.

VS Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left an extensive comment on the article's talk page. You keep talking about it being cited many times, and being peer-reviewed research, but you keep ignoring the objections that Sitush explicitly raised about why that's not necessarily enough. Please re-read WP:RS---it clearly says that we need to consider more than just the publisher and the author--what exactly we're trying to support also matters. Finally, please try to cut Sitush some slack--hundreds of accounts (probably many duplicates of blocked editors) keep coming back to that page, over and over and over again, with poor arguments and unreliable sources, all to promote their own opinions about Nairs. While your arguments show a bit more reason than those before you, your overwhelming of the talk page is equally as painful. Finally, Sitush never once said that the article is close to perfect. He didn't even imply that. Misrepresenting other users needs to stop immediately. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

saw ur comments....“nothing” in the spirit which you describe would be removing etymology section altogether from the article. I am willing to accept that as a NPOV. The present etymology section is a WP:COATRACK for a POV of ML Dames !!!. Hope u see what i mean too :-)) VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

VANDAL warning

Yep. I'll be careful. But I warned him many times so I jumped to level 4.--Plea$ant 1623 13:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)/

Removal of External Link

I am concerned that you have removed an external link to the Japanese culture page at gojapango.com http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Culture_of_Japan&diff=493598493&oldid=493598321 You have not sited which, if any of the external link criteria that the page doesn't meet. If you can't provide this, I see no reason for not reinstating the link. Whats up skip (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're looking at links backwards. In some cases, yes, it's easier to exclude them because they violate a rule, but keeping with the overall text of the page, and WP:NOT, a better point is that you need to be looking for a specific justification for inclusion. In other words, I reverse the question: what criteria in WP:ELYES does that site meet? Looking at their About page, it's a self-published website, with no particular authority. Furthermore, it's primary purpose is to drive sales traffic. And a number of their main articles are just based on Wikipedia articles anyway. Thus, it doesn't provide a useful, unique resource, which is what we're looking for in an EL. If you're certain I'm wrong, let me know, and I'll take the issue to WP:ELN, which is our central noticeboard for finding consensus on what is or isn't a good external link. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

wishful thinking

Your humour in "Is that what "murder" means? (joke)" appreciated earnestly :-)....I wish sometimes i could also joke when i am discussing things...its hard...i become this completely "machine" no anger..no happiness... no emotions...just the "rules" that need to be followed. I suppose thats the disadvantage of my German upbringing :-)) VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry..just realized that sitush was the one who made that joke..i should have placed it on his talk page...VS(Vettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

HSU affair article

Hello - with regard to your response here: sorry to disagree with you Qwyrxian, but I know for a fact that there is at least one of those alluded to, and there is a definite WP:COI at work. One member of the Liberal Party of Australia was editing the article under its old title. Your other points are duly noted, however I would ask you to note that this edit was not considered outing behavior, and there has been no whining or edit-warring about that. You have email. One21dot216dot (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but perhaps you've just picked the wrong person here. I don't actually believe that COI editing is wrong. I believe that we all have biases (always, no exceptions), and I don't think that being an employee is any more of a bias than any other. All I care about is WP:NPOV. I actually support the rights of editors to edit any topic, including those which they have a COI with, so long as the end result matches our other policies. Now, if there were some sort of a coordinated campaign by multiple people with a COI, then that's a different matter, but that actually falls under other behavioral policies. In other words, don't worry about one of the editors having a COI, even if you can prove it. Worry about whether or not the edits he or she makes are neutral, not original research, of due weight, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. One21dot216dot (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another caste, another problem

I have a problem at Kallar (caste). I have commented at Talk:Kallar (caste)#My recent reverts and also at both User talk:Jayanthskr and User talk:Kallarmagan. Should I send it to WP:RFPP it or can you deal with it under WP:GS? I am ok on 3RR but this is just going to drag on. - Sitush (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice this earlier (I saw only the reply of the person above, not noticing you had commented before that). I've semi-protected for 3 days and reverted, but I don't know how long it will help--one of the editors is at 9 edits, the other at 7, so "they" (or "he", if it's one person) may be autoconfirmed shortly. If they break through to auto, then we'll have to figure out what to do next. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted the autoconfirm issue, That was why I was wondering whether there might be an appropriate GS method. But, no worries. I suspect that you and I both know where this is going. If my gut feeling is correct then there are methods available to deal with it. It would be far simpler if they would just talk but my experience suggests that is unlikely to happen! I have lost the letter T on my keyboard, the leter N and L keep falling off, and some others are looking a bit dodgy! Apologies for any typos. Yes, I can fix the issue - repairing laptops is a part of what I do when I have any work at all, but it pre-supposes having the work to generate the money to buy the spares! Till hen I migh seem o ype some bushi. Bu i is no. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing that may possibly work is if they don't actually know what autoconfirmed means. That may, if luck holds, lead them to a talk page. I don't know if it will actually help (like if they just decide to copy the whole edit to the talk page), but it's still a fair first step.

As for your keyboard, you'll just have to learn how to write without using 't's...like how Gadsby is an entire novel without 'e's. No more definite article, no more "that" or "those"...but I'm sure you can make do :). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation error messages

Re: this edit. That will happen whenever an editor that uses a non-English interface to Wikipedia edits a talk page containing a reference. The error is suppressed on English Wikipedia, but the suppression was placed specifically in the English error message text. All it takes for the message to disappear is for someone using English as the interface language to make any edit to the talk page.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, our highly paid developers out to get on that right away! That is a weird thing. Good to know there's an easier solution than adding in nowikis.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a developer issue, actually. Just a matter of someone going though all the different language versions of the citation error message and making the change. No one has ever been excited enough about it. I suspect there aren't very many editors that actively edit English Wikepedia using the Dutch interface, so it's not a high priority. I suspect that if you just hit the purge button it would be enough.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Totally baffled by this exchange, but I'd hope that Drmies is not! - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on quick reflection, I remain baffled but have had a similar experience on my talk page in the last few weeks, and I am fairly sure that it involved a regular en-WP contributor. I will do some digging omorrow, - Sitush (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No idea why you are baffled. I've discussed it with Drmies, and I believe he uses the English interface. I'm the only frequent English Wikipedia editor using the Dutch interface that I'm aware of.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For me, it makes sense in that "I understand what is happening", but it doesn't makes sense in terms of "What the heck is going on with the programming to cause that specific error, and why fix it with a kludge in the template?" But, of course, expecting perfect coding from an all volunteer programming team is like expecting perfect writing from an all volunteer editing team. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This image needs to be deleted

And since you deleted the article it was on, I figured you'd be able to handle it, as I have yet to decipher how to properly CSD an image. This file is actually a (probably copyrighted) depiction of Kristen Stewart, and not the (likely fictional) Nivetha Krish. One copy of the image can be found here. The uploader actually being the author is highly unlikely, for obvious reasons, and doubly so due to the fact that it's such a low-res copy. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've requested deletion. The file is hosted on commons, where I am not an admin, so I can't delete it directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks! I'm going to go read up so I can handle it myself in the future. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Full service

Hi, thanks for the move on Full service; I neglected to suggest the same for the talk page.

Would you mind fixing it? It requires deletion of Talk:Full service then moving Talk:Full Service to Talk:Full service. Then, I think we're done. Thanks! --KarlB (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, i forgot the talk page. Done now. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

cheers!--KarlB (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Table of World Heritage Sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_World_Heritage_Sites_by_country I thought you might want to have look at this problem as I think the changes should only be made by someone senior or experienced. The title of this article refers to "Table of World Heritage Sites by country", however this isn't what the data is in the table. The data in the table is of "World Heritage Listings". A World Heritage Listing can contain one or more sites. Thus the title of this article and the heading above the table needs to be changed or the data needs to be changed and new article made for "Table of World Heritage Listings by country" Whats up skip (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the information and the UNESCO site, it appears to be accurate--the table lists the number sites in each country; looking just at the first two entries, Aghanistan and Albania says their are two sites, which is what is listed on the UNESCO site. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the distinction between the term listing and site. For example Kyoto has 17 World Heritage Sites, which together make one listing: "Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities)". Whereas Himeji Castle is a single site, which makes up a single listing. Thus the numbers in the table are correct, it is the terminology that is incorrect. I also just noticed that when you click on the country's name in the table it takes you the main country page, not to the page listing the World Heritage Site/Listing for that country, which would be more logical.Whats up skip (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin drive hunt

I left a question on the Sea Shepherd talk page for you. Basically I note 'On Wikipedia there is the article dolphin drive hunt.' I suggest that this may better than 'slaughter', what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rough hewn and made of wood (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Raja Pervaiz Ashraf

Would it be possible to have this protected permanently or for a longer period, the same way it's been done for Asif Ali Zardari? This is an article on a high profile personality and the subject of the article is also controversial, hence it will be likely to attract frequent vandalism from IPs every now and then. Better to keep the article safe from IP editors. Mar4d (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the Protection log for Asif Ali Zardari (at the bottom of that page), you'll see that it was protected for temporary periods numerous times before going over to indefinite protection. In keeping with Wikipedia's principle that all editors in general should be allowed to edit all pages, and that protection should only be applied sparingly, we can't jump from never protected before to an immediate semi-protection (usually). Of course, if after the protection expires the vandalism/BLP violations resume, we can start protecting for longer. Since this is a BLP, we can escalate fairly quickly; for example, I'd probably jump to 2 or 3 weeks next time, then 2 months, then 6 months, though each admin will evaluate differently. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Mar4d (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comfort Women

Rubi Abiru's blog is Sankei Newspaper's official blog. That blog is Sankei Newspaper's official blog and only newspaper reporter can write it an article. And that article wrote by Rubi Abiru of Sankei Newspaper's newspaper reporter exclusive a prime minister. Therefore he applies the terms of the "WP:RS", and that article is not my personal opinion.Wingwrong (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

阿比留瑠比

国を憂い、われとわが身を甘やかすの記

If it's a newspaper blog, that is probably okay, sorry about that. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lunaweb

Now that OTRS is confirmed, might the page be moved to name "Steve Charles (Surgeon)" and out of my User space? Again, I really appreciate all of your help Qwyrxian. I will continue to add references. Lunaweb (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, about the semi-protection

Falling in Reverse 2

Semi-protection: Moderate level of IP vandalism.

I would like any type of lock for the page Falling in Reverse to stop people with out accounts editing it, there has been numerous amounts of vandalism, e.g A lot of people keep removing alot of the former members, they keep messing with the genres, and they also keep writing things like "this band is gay" "does anyone on actually like this band" "Falling in Reverse are a gay hardcore mainstream band" , this vandalism occurs mostly in the sidebox, in the template, in the first chapter titled "The Drug in Me is You and Record Deal" but the thing is, its only people without accounts that do it

Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. First, I don't see any comments like you're talking about in the last 50 edits (last few weeks), though it's possible I missed some. Second, I actually see more productive than unproductive editing by IPs. Please try to discuss the issues on the talk page; if problems get worse, you can bring it back here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've pasted the convo. Now, right firstly the productive IP's are me when I forget to log into my account by the vandalism happens by the following IP's User:98.234.119.219 and User:66.169.169.62 if the can be blocked then having semi-protection wouldn't be necessary, but most of these examples i've used have been from march, april, may, etc Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't protect for vandalism that occurred months ago. There needs to be current, ongoing vandalims. Every admin evaluates differently, but for me, for non BLP issues, I'm looking for either extremely bad vandalism or no less than 3-5 per week. And we definitely never block for vandalism that occurred a long time ago, especially on IP addresses, since most IP addresses are dynamic so the person who made the vandalism edits probably isn't even at that address anymore. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That's fairplay, but these people are the same about 2 days each week they do it to the template, then the page itself, then the templates for some reason, i don't know how to block the two, but it would help if any admin could see to this. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

John Horsefield issues

You made one contribution to John Horsefield, way back in January. You know how I feel about writing lead sections and I need to thank you for stepping in there. The thing has just been awarded GA and your writing is still mostly intact. I am getting a bit better with leads, but am still pretty useless!

A very recent development at that article, however, concerns me slightly. There was a thread here where various issues were raised. Among those was my frustration regarding knowing things that were (by my definition) not based on reliable sources. I was pretty much told not to be silly and that they were perfectly ok, so I put the stuff in there with full expectation that the GA reviewer would challenge. They didn't.

OK, it is one reviewer and therefore not as rigorous as the FA process, but he does have a fair amount of experience with reviews, as of course does Malleus in the thread linked to above. This begs a huge question: have you and I got the wrong end of the stick regarding some of the records rejected in India related stuff? I am still uneasy about the content at Horsefield and I am still uneasy about the validity of the Indic stufd, but is this a "source for the goose, source for the gander" situation? And, yes, I have intentionally punned.. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I read WP:PRIMARY differently than they do, I guess. For me, you can use the primary doc to support the claims about familiar relationships, since we can presume the family registry/tree or whatever that doc is (genealogy is not my forte) is accurate with respect to those claims (though if he claimed direct descent from Jesus or Krishna or something, we'd have a different issue). However, I do not believe the document can legitimately validate a claim like "first do X", because it's not a reliable source with respect to that issue. As an analogy, for me, a person's bio page at a company is a legitimate source for claims like "Earned a Master's degree in X from University Y" and "previously worked at companies A, B, and C." I do not consider it valid for claims like "Won Award Z" (I'd want a link to the award page, or even a claim of a published offline document listing the award) or "Most popular something in City D" or "Considered one of the leading researchers in Field F". I'm certainly not going to take the line out of Horsefield, though. But on the Indian info, there's an additional problem: we don't even want to say things like "According to Thurston...." because we know that Thurston (if I'm thinking of the right person) regularly got it wrong, by simply failing to do what we would now consider mandatory fact-checking. For things like census documents, we also know that they were wrong, because (if I remember what you've said correctly), the Brits taking the census merely accepted at face value what some leader told them, even in cases where the claims were contradictory to either other claims or easily observable fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is tricky stuff. Obviously, I don't want to be seen to be using double standards. I think it fairly likely that I shall take Horsefield to FA after doing some library research and so may test the waters there, but I will have a general ponder in any event. My musings in that thread were not intended to find a loophole etc and I was rather astonished to get the responses that I did. - Sitush (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Emperor Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo

Hi! Please move back the article. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved it back, and move protected it indefinitely. If that same editor becomes a problem on some other article that you're watching, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh...

How does one convert "umpteenth time" in ordinals? Look at ANI and search for "Noozgroup" and "Blocked for three months." Drmies (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly

You objected to the use of the word "overwhelmingly", possibly without reading the source provided:

"The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has voted overwhelmingly to suspend the beleaguered Health Services Union (HSU) from its ranks. Fair Work Australia this week announced it had found 181 breaches of the rules in a three-year probe into the HSU. It referred the matter to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, but he said it was not a brief of evidence and could not act on it. Amid the controversy, ACTU bosses yesterday said the peak union body was compelled to act to send a message of zero tolerance for corruption. Today, delegates voted 1797 to 103 in favour of the suspension.[10]

Could you explain how "overwhelmingly" is considered NPOV when used in that exact contact to describe a 95%-supported vote, as used by the most impartial and most highly regarded media outlet in Australia? Please. --Pete (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't try to play me. I have no tolerance for that type of wordsmithing. We don't use that type of word because we're not a newspaper. We're an encyclopedia. That type of language has no business being in Wikipedia's voice. And more importantly, that was but one tiny example...the bigger problem was the ridiculous amount of attention to detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Great timing. Could you put your side of the story on ANI, please? I've requested more eyes on the matter. --Pete (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Marinaccio

In case your watchlist don't pick it up, please see user talk:RHaworth#Joseph Marinaccio and User:Cards1477/Joseph Marinaccio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Gurukkal brahmins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chera (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Association of Global Automakers - Wikiproject Cooperation

Hey, i'm trying to get through the three things that are left on the PAIDHELP page, so i'm hitting up a few people to comment. And you're one of them. :3 The section is here discussing the Association of Global Automakers. Feel free to read through everything WWB Too said there, but in short, here's the draft version he would like to replace it with. Can you take a moment to look it over and respond in the PAIDHELP section? Silverseren^C 21:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

EW at Narayana sukta

There is a war going on at Narayana sukta. I tried to do some clean up of poor sourcing etc but am otherwise uninvolved. I have had a chat with the two protagonists, one of whom is almost certainly also editing as an IP. I am away over the weekend - could you perhaps keep an eye on it? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was also away this weekend. The edit warring seems to have stopped at least temporarily. I've added it to my watchlist. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Undelete request

Could you please restore Cheongye Kwan? It was deleted at AfD for failing GNG. I helped the editor at IRC. I just discovered (via IRC) Barry Cook, which appears to be the same thing rehashed. The creator denies any connection, but I think it's quite a coincidence, and would like to know if there's any verbatim text. If you can, pls dump it into one of my sandboxes. If you can't perhaps another admin stalker can. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I saw it go red. It's still around. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Royal College Panadura, Royal College, Colombo and others

Hello. Fairly long time.

Maybe we should do something about these schools like Royal College Panadura and Royal College, Colombo. There's a war going on over the names. Should the title, lede, and infobox title all match? I don't know, but I think I prefer it. And what about Cossade? I really can't figure out whether or not this editor is making good edits. Anyway, maybe we get everyone to sort it all out at talk, and then there is something to refer to as the correct way. Also, some page protects may be in order after this is sorted out. The rvs are daily. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I kind of want to believe Cossde, given his experience...but part of me does not. See, the problem, as near as I can figure out, is twofold. First, there doesn't seem to be an "official name", or, if there is one, its not necessarily the same as the name used in reliable sources (which varies). There doesn't even seem to be an official website--Cossde has indicated that the schools have registered for wesbites, but apparently they're not running yet, and the old websites are unofficial. But the bigger problem is that there is apparently a major rivalry going on. I believe the main question is whether or not all of the schools are really "Royal Colleges", with some people pointing to the constitution and arcane legal docs, and others pointing to regular usage. I think Cossde even attempted to use the phrasing on a very old statue at one time to determine the name ordering. And it doesn't help, of course, that the "real" names aren't even in English. At the same time, the IP editors arguing against Cossde routinely insult and belittle him, and very rarely use the talk page (except for more insults).

I've edited a number of the pages, and only acted administratively on one or two. And I have had a significant editing dispute with Cossde on the list of the alumni page relating to the need for refs and the use of honorific titles. So I find it very hard to judge, and reliable sources don't seem to be very clear.

I guess what we need is a centralized RfC, with notifications on each page. I kind-of think that WikiProject: Schools is the best, because its fairly well watched (and I don't think there's an active Sri Lanka project). Perhaps the articles should be semi-protected at the same time, or maybe even fully protected (this might force people to discuss, especially if we intentionally protected Cossde's version...he'll almost certainly discuss no matter what).

Does this seem like a smart plan to an impartial observer like yourself? I know you can't make the protections happen, but I'm sure I can rustle up someone to do that as long as it seems like a good idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. And should I write to the Head Masters? Would that help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a letter to the head masters would not help, because the response to said letter, even if you got one, would not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. I've argued the same position before in other articles--sources need to be publicly released. They don't have to be free, they don't have to be easy to access, but private letters and communication simply aren't good enough.

I've asked Cossde to give me a list of all effected schools; I don't know if Colombo and Panadura are the only 2, or if there are more I don't see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, Im sry to barge into your discussion. I came across on it when I came to answer Qwyrxian question. And Yes I will all ways come to discuss :).

The issue here is larger than what it seems here. Royal College Colombo is one of the premier schools in the country and as gained much animosity from many quarters. Its common to see attacks on the school that are verbal, written and even physical. Due to the popularity, it is often refereed to as Royal College or at times Royal College, Colombo 7 from the postal area where its located which is often considered the most exclusive residential area in the country. Due to the schools prominence other schools have adapted the same name as it is a common case in Sri Lanka and in the rest of the world. The schools at are referred to here are such (Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila, Panadura Royal College and Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya) and there is another school that have not been part of this edit war (Ranabima Royal College). My personal opinion is that these edit wars are not carried out by any in these schools or any one with the best interests of the schools, but is gone with the aim of using it to attack Royal College Colombo. As you can see the same editor is editing Royal College Colombo in a non-productive manner. My suspicions are the it may be User:Masu7 who has attempted to mirror any edits done on Royal College Colombo on Nalanda College Colombo and when I attempt to correct the factual accuracies with refs; he has carried out edits on Royal College Colombo and associated articles that can be considered non-productive and lashed out at me in everything but good faith. My suspicions are based on remarks made by him such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cossde&diff=480774445&oldid=480638855). There is no sort of rivalry between Royal and Nalanda College, Colombo but it seems that they have a common tendency to emulate Royal :S (eg: Royal–Thomian and Ananda-Nalanda, EDEX and Future Minds, Royal Parade and Nalanda Walk, Saga (event) and Sandwani, etc). So this could be the underlining story in this whole edit war. Cossde (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

THanks, Cossde; I'll try to start up an RfC in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is open at WT:WikiProject Schools#Naming issue for public schools in Sri Lanka. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He's baaaack

And apparently isn't getting the hint. diffs history of COPS(TV) series Repeat offender, fresh off his block, is back making the same edit, yet again. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Digital Divide article

Hello. Without discussion, you removed the material on the MIT project Imara in the Digital divide article. And you also removed material on Boston's digital connection initiative. You wrote in your comment that "We're [who's 'we'?] going to need some independent sources that indicate that project is important to include". This material on the Imara project at MIT has been in the article for some time before it was deleted along with much other material in Fall 2011 for unclear reasons. The Imara project verbiage had citations, mostly from MIT publications. It's quite self explanatory. It's subsidized by Cisco, Google, et al. ( http://imara.csail.mit.edu/ ) It's been around for many years. I don't see your point. I've been editing Wikipedia since January 2005, so I don't sloppily put information into articles as you might wish to note. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The length of time its been in the article, as well as the length of your volunteering, do not trump the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Given how broad that article's topic is, we should only be covering the most important information (that is, information that is of due weight). That is going to mean information that is verified by independent sources. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that MIT's program is particularly important or noted in the real world. You provided citations, but they were only from MIT publications. Without independent citations, the information does not belong in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I find your strong-armed approach inappropriate. Had I enough time, I would attempt to take it to arbitration. But one is better left speechless at your actions and duly note them for future reference despite one's having tried to take your points. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I'm merely following policy here; however, others may interpret policy differently in this circumstance. You're more than welcome to get other opinions. The first step to dispute resolution would be to open up a discussion on the article talk page. I'll go ahead and do that for you. If there is a consensus that the information belongs, I will certainly follow said consensus (pending, of course, possible further DR). If no one responds to that discussion, we can try to request a third opinion. You indicate you may be busy, so I'll be sure to link to your comments here in case you don't have time to respond. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm not interested in pursuing this any further or I would have done so myself despite being busy. I want to get back to editing, not conversing to no end. Thanks for your comments, despite our difference of opinion. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You might

want to see Spaceman Spiff's recent post on my talk page about an editor you've run across. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see, on your page or in the history, where SpacemanSpiff commented. I also don't see anything specific on your page that concerns a topic I'm familiar with. Could you point me more specifically at what you're thinking of? Qwyrxian (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. See Ancienzus (talk · contribs). Now blocked as a sock of Kalarimaster. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, I'd asked Elockid to check over email to avoid WP:BEANS which is quite important in this particular case (and also informed Doug then as I saw him post there, didn't notice that Q was also being sucked in to discussions with him). We've had way too much disruption from him in the past and I hope a few more people can get familiar with his behavior to identify him early on. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, just wanted to say thank you for your quick and decisive work removing the nonsense from Anita Sarkeesian. I didn't like the look of the new section either, but lacked the experience to take such unilateral action, or at least to be able to articulate why it was so necessary. Keep up the good work! Euchrid (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gary Multani

Hey, dear. I want your help. Please warn (or whatever) to User:Gary Multani. Check his edits on Babbu Maan, he spoiled the article badly by repeating same statements many times and more. I can't handle such new comers, so requesting you to give him a sense or tutorial. It irritates me on someone unfamiliar with wiki spoils articles created by myself because created then after reading much about wiki, it's rules, article layout, neutrality etc.. 'll be grateful to you. TariButtar (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted Gary's edits, and commented on his talk page. I've also made significant edits to the article as well.

However, I do have to say that if you get irritated when new editors change your articles, you're probably not a good fit for Wikipedia. Our core means of working is for information one person adds or changes to be further edited and changed by others. Sometimes the changes aren't helpful, but sometimes they are. Sometimes they need modification, or sometimes should just be rolled back. If you're unhappy with such changes, it's going to be difficult for you to work on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)