User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

What to do with such usernames

Hello. Please help. What should we do with the usernames that are just promoting some institute or company, I mean on Punjabi wiki, I've found users named "Shemaroo" and "Delhi Public School". Shemaroo is the name of a video cd company and other is of a noted school, so should they be deleted? Tari Buttar (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know--this is definitely a case where policies vary site to site. Heck, this site is itself considering a change in policy. Our policy is found at WP:USER. Is there some equivalent on Punjabi wiki? Alternatively, what about asking and admin there? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks

Can I ask you to self-revert your latest edit? I'd actually have to block you if I were to enforce the revert parole on that article equally. Also, it just so happens that the long-standing stable version was in fact the K-J one, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If you had blocked me, I wouldn't have minded. It was my fault for editing quickly and not actually looking carefully at both the history and the phrasing (I imagined the other editor was adding something, rather than just re-arranging things). I was only briefly looking at WP, and should have known better than to edit a contentious subject under such circumstances. Thanks for letting me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please teach me.　A few days ago, I was blocked because of the Liancourt Rocks. But I can't imagine why I was blocked. I heard Sunrise's talk page, but he never answer. Would you mind teaching me the reason ? Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 06:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why FPaS blocked you. I do know that on that article you need to be extra careful about editing. First, don't make one more revert per day (that's the mistake I made that Future Perfect explains above). The one edit that I see you made around that time was a continuation of an on going edit war, so even though you only made one edit, a strict admin could construe that as continuing a long term problem. It may be that he also took into account your comment on the article's talk page, as well as your general behavior around Japanese-Korean topics. As I've already advised you, I believe that your opinions on this matter are too strong for you to be able to edit neutrally. And that's okay--almost everyone has topics that they can't edit neutrally. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I act carefully. Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 07:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian Hello. Thanks for your message. I know the South Korea claimed their sovereignty over the islets according to some old documents which they claimed written several hundred years ago. But, like you said, Japanese government did not do it, so I changed the edit. Thanks for your point-out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfumie (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

User:The Banner (formerly User:Night_of_the_Big_Wind) wikihounding

Hi,

Do you remember this? Given that context I have to concern when the same user (new name) disruptively meddles in a thread exclusively to point out my past topic bans attempting to prevent an user from me:[1]. Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left Banner a message, let's see what he says. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not wikihounding. Just giving information about a user who immedeately starts crying and asks for help. Because the subject Maafa 21 is within the range of articles where mr. CS misbehaved before, the warning seemed sensible to me. I did not issue the warning to all users he is having a conflict with at that article. I did not respond on mr. CS himself.

If you regard my warning as wikihounding, what to think about this section on your talkpage? I consider him mentioning my old username as a breach of privacy, but I am not calling in the cavalry... The Banner _talk 17:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't recall any interaction the last few months. Then it is a bit silly and pityfull to name 1 (one) remark straight away as wikihounding. The Banner _talk 17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrixian: Just to avoid a misunderstanding: neither I am "fooling" anybody as suggested here nor I am in a "conflict" with anybody nor I am "crying" as was claimed above. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are not in a conflict, then why did you need to go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (as I could see in your contributions)? Perhaps because they didn't like your POV? And when I make just ONE remark, you start shouting for help? Poor Claudio, you must regard me as an extremely nasty and influential guy... The Banner _talk 20:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrixian: I did not any edit at all at that article in the past 4 months[2] but solely comments at the discuss page, the current dispute resolution thread was solicited by User:Beleg_Strongbow[3] and I was invited there due I have supported User:Beleg_Strongbow's edits and arguments he brought to the mentioned discussion page. In the DRN I made one single and short comment[4] as it was requested to me[5]. User:The Banner was not involved at all. Said that, I still wonder what is the purpose of User:The Banner coming to accuse me of "fooling" User:Beleg_Strongbow, User:Roscelese or whoever, in a thread where this User:Beleg_Strongbow (not me) was apologizing to another user (not me but User:Roscelese) for some of his (not mine but Beleg's) comments to her (Roscelese, not me)[6]. Last to mention that despite of that polite and civil gesture from Beleg to Roscelese, who have been the most involved and active persons in the discussion, but no body involved is complaining about a "conflict" nor a disruption nor even it has took place any edit war nor a single complaint at any ANI, but I see the parts attempting to avoid such sort of "conflicts" even apealing to consensual dispute resolution means such as the DRN and using extensively the discuss page. So, I wonder how a isolated and foreign comment accusing me of "fooling" and pointing out my past topic ban could be purposeful at all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed not more then likely. According to DRN -Maafa 21 Beleg Strongbow is just as pro-life as you are...

But you were not editing at Maafa 21? Very strange, acoording to the history. And I did not say that you were fooling Beleg Strongbow, but that you were trying to fool Roscelese. The Banner _talk 21:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We are going the wrong way, but this is always happening between CS and me. You say one word, and he starts a discussion. I admit, I have no respect for POV-pushers AT ALL. And the above discussion shows clearly that CS is a POV-pusher and creative with the truth/sources. And the wikihounding exists only in his head. I follow quite a number of euthanasia/abortion-related articles, but I am not following CS around. I just warn here and there when CS crosses my ways... The Banner _talk 21:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrixian: *Sigh* I leave this "hot potatoe" (mess) for you Qwyrixian. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Claudio, but you can't "wikihound" me away. The Banner _talk 00:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Banner, I'm fairly certain I said this clearly once in ANI, and I'll look it up if you really like me to: stop talking about CS, anywhere, to anyone, for any reason. You are not "CS-Patrol". You do not need to warn other editors. If on some article you both already edit, you see CS doing something wrong, quietly tell an uninvolved admin. As for mentioning your previous name, there's no breach of privacy: this is not a WP:CLEANSTART account, as you yourself link to the name on your user page. You can't change your name and then call your previous behavior off limits. Only a clean start can do that, and that would require that you then no longer edit the same types of pages you edited before.

As to CS's behaviour, I simply don't have the time to go research it. If it's a problem, I'm certainly someone else will identify it, and once someone does, they'll check the block log or ANI archives and see his history. And if there really is a problem, someone else, not you, will identify it and fix it. And if CS is not causing problems, there's no reason for his bad behavior to hang over his head. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

To Qwyrxian: just to document the thing, Here is the warning at ANI, you made to The Banner, and here is the diff when you still had to block him for 72 hours due he did not follow your warning but he still wikihounded me again then. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You should investigate it properly, instead of believing CS on his word. I know I am not the CS-patrol, and I am not acting like that. But it is annoying to see that you act as CS-defender. So I will keep it easy: I will ignore you, CS and this whole ridiculous discussion. The Banner _talk 02:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You went to the talk page of an uninvolved user whom CS was talking to explicitly and specifically to warn that other user about CS's past bad behavior. That's unacceptable. I'm not defending CS in any way--I'm simply saying it's not worth my time to go dredging through his history. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, a CS-defender. Waste of time. The Banner _talk 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine, you're welcome to the opinion. The next breach on your part leads to WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome... The Banner _talk 02:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete my file, please

File:Mount-Equinox-Viewer-Center-Construction-2012.jpg
Can you delete this? Apparently the email I forwarded to the committee wasn't "up to their standards" and have tagged it for deletion anyways. Not sure why a picture sent to me for use on the internet, can't be also used here, but I don't make the rules, and the OTRS people are annoying me. So if you could delete it to get them off my back, I would appreciate it. Thanks, NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted it per your request. Apologies, but I don't know enough about images and copyright to advise you how to fix the problem (if it can be fixed). Do you want me to find someone who can advise more on how to handle permissions and the like? I know a few admins who do much more with files than I do. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nope I am all set. I am going to stick to mainly patrolling articles and such, like I have been doing all along =) NECRAT^{Speak to me} 08:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your undoing my edit in List of Scandals in India

Dear Qwyrxian, you ruined my hard work. The data now written is absolutely wrong.The coal scam is not of 1,070,000 crore. It was a mere speculation of news channel before the actual CAG report was released. The actual CAG report says the scam is of 1.85591.34 crore. See the original CAG report page 30 para 1. Link for CAG report- http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/Popup/2012/8/Final_Ministry_Coal.pdf. The second link I gave of news paper clearly mentions scam in the center of page in blue box under the heading 'CAG punch' in which news paper has rounded up the figure of 1,85,591.34 crore to 1,86,000 crore. Link - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Rs-1-86-lakh-cr-loss-in-coal-blocks-biggest-scam-ever-BJP/Article1-914959.aspx

The other scam Ultra Mega Power project scam, see the same blue box in centre of link under the heading 'CAG punch'.You can see name of Reliance Power. Link- http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Rs-1-86-lakh-cr-loss-in-coal-blocks-biggest-scam-ever-BJP/Article1-914959.aspx. See onother link- http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-08-18/news/33261655_1_chitrangi-project-sasan-project-coal-blocks.

Third scam Delhi Airport scam. This scam has two components. One of giving away land and it is ascam of 1,63,557 crore and second part allowing levying of DF ( development fee) which was a post bidding favour which was a scam of 3415.35 crore.You can see name of DIAL in link. See 1st and last para of page 1 of link- http://cdn.indianexpress.com/news/delhi-airport-scam-gmrled-dial-gains-rs-3-415-cr/989540/ and also see para 1 and 6 of link - http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/CAG-smells-Rs-1-63-lakh-crore-scam-in-Delhi-airport-deal/Article1-859905.aspx

Kindly please note that- 1.First get your facts clear. 2.Read the links carefully. 3.Only edit those topics on Wikipedia whom you have complete knowledge of. Luckydhaliwal (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for misreading the article--I didn't notice the blue call-out box. I will revert to the version containing your edits. However, I kindly ask that next time you disagree with someone, please just explain nicely--there's no need to be insulting. It's very easy to revert changes on Wikipedia, and I'm happy to do so. Oh, and on point 3--that's not a requirement here, and if you feel you can't work with people who make mistakes, or have incomplete knowledge, this may not be the place for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already reverted. Then why say I "ruined your hard work"? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I sounded insulting. I just wrote what came in my mind at that time but I promise to take care of my words in future so that they do not hurt anyone. But you also sounded rude when you wrote " this may not be the place for you". By writing about complete knowledge of topics I just wanted to say that 'I edit only when I am sure". To make Wikipedia better it needs the contribution of both you and me and many others. I feel sorry again because I am not here to insult anyone but just to give my contributions to Wikipedia.Luckydhaliwal (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And my apologies to you, too. I didn't mean to sound harsh or insulting either. I really should have been more careful when I checked the news article--not looking only at the text but also the graphics. It looks like we've had a misunderstanding, and I certainly hope my mistake won't dissuade you from future work. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pratibha Patil

What do you mean 'that' information? I cited all the necessary references there and they go undisputed. I also notice other users making the same complaints related to the article. Are you accusing that we're just making this stuff up but by luck strike commonalities? Your argument has no reason with it, just lot of words that make me suspect your claim of being 'japanese' , not being 'indian'. However I will try to get the consensus. Thank you for your notice. Intwizs (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because a statement is cited does not mean that it can be added to a Wikipedia article. Please review WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. In this specific example, I'll try to explain the issues again: just because someone has accused Patil of something scandalous, and just because some newspapers report that scandal, does not mean that it rises to the level required by WP:UNDUE. Our goal is to provide information of long-term, encyclopedic merit. Now, if some specific scandal becomes long-running, causes problems during election time, is remarked upon by academics (historians, political scientists, etc.) in peer-reviewed journals or high quality books, at that point the info could be added. But it simply cannot be there if all we can cite are a few newspaper articles from a specific time frame, after which point the story just disappears. So, some of that info may well belong in the article. But we must tread extremely cautiously with BLP, starting by keeping stuff out and adding it only when we are certain it merits inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

By your argument, most of articles about personalities from India would have to be checked for policy violations and chunks of information would have to be removed, because most of the stories do disappear along with some newspaper columnists and reporters even.. crying shame .. Intwizs (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's true, then yes. And you're more than welcome to do so. Of course, every time, it's a judgment call. For example, if a person were actually charged with a crime, (I think the Indian term is "a chargesheet were filed"), then that could probably go in the article (unless charges were later dropped, in which case then it becomes a judgment call). If the case were occupying top spot on the news for a month, then you could probably keep it. It all depends. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dominic Angerame

Hello, I was wondering why the article on Dominic Angerame was copyvio... The quote was directly from an email Angerame sent to the Frameworks mailing list. The list keeps its archives online, so the email will be posted there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.101.103 (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime anyone writes anything, it is automatically copyrighted (with very rare exceptions). It doesn't matter where that's written, even if it's a private letter. You can't copy things written in other places onto Wikipedia. The broader point is that it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to repost private letters, especially when their authenticity is not certain. Someone's letter posted on a mailing list is not a reliable source. And we definitely can't use that type of info when the purpose is clearly to hurt living people, per WP:BLP. Until such time as the copyright and [{WP:BLP]] issues are sorted out, blanking the article is better. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Thing is the article was there for months or even years. Only when the subject got wrongly terminated from his position did the company he worked for intervene from telling the truth, and put the article to copyvio, in essence manipulating Wikipedia for their corporation's benefit. I do agree about the copyright issues, technically speaking. But when it comes to the field of avant-garde cinema copyright has always been a fuzzy area. And, sadly, in this case, it is used by a corporation (that has tech-savvy employees) to prevent the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.71.226.34 (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright is only what prevents us from copying the whole thing verbatim. If that were a reliable source, we would simply summarize it and cite it, just like we do for everything else on WP. But that letter isn't a reliable source. It doesn't matter how long it was posted. Forums are not reliable sources for WP articles, nor are private letters. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Jannat 2

Hi! If you could, state me a law in Wikipedia that shows "Wikipedia doesn't allow so much of the article to be quotations." Don't change the page again without showing me one. 111.92.93.151 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, that's not what's going to happen. Two different editors have reverted you. It is now your responsibility to go to the article's talk page and discuss it. You can't just edit war to get your way. However, I'll go ahead and start that discussion there, and you'll need to join it. Do not re-add your version until you get consensus, because even if policy doesn't forbid something, that doesn't mean that one editor can just declare their version better. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, and when editors disagree, they discuss. While the discussion is ongoing, the page should stay in the previous version. Give me a few minutes while I find the relevant policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I re-edit the page once more, deleting the unwanted details in the quotes? Josephjames.me (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible; we still don't want a newspaper by newspaper breakdown. We want a general sentence that says something like "Jannat 2 received generally favorable reviews" or "Jannat 2 was mostly disliked by critics" or whatever. Then we would pick out particularly interesting or noteworthy reviews, saying "For example, Person from Newspaper Y gave it 4 out of 5 stars, saying...". And we wouldn't want more than 3 or so review reports like that. Perhaps the best way would be for you to propose an edit on the talk page first, then see what people think. Then we can craft the wording together, collaboratively, that will fit the article well. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! It is the often used style in Wikipedia to add more reviews in order to add more information to the critical reception section. Here, I avoided over quoting also. Why cannot I add more reviews to the critical reception section? Even in the WP:UNDUE, it is shown that "Each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Why not accepting still? However, I will propose the edit in the Jannat 2 talk page, as you said. Bye Josephjames.me (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the best way. I'll be happy to discuss it with you and other editors there. As a side note, please don't change the formatting on other people's talk pages. Especially since the normal formatting is to use colons at the beginnings of paragraphs to indent each reply one more level--it makes it easier to follow who said what.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

174.55.0.78

My friend, when you get a chance, can you look at this user. User_talk:174.55.0.78. He has been warned repeatedly over the last two months from several editors about ongoing vandalisim genre edits. Might be worth administrator intervention. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 04:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 2 days. It is entirely possible that the person was unaware of the conversations on his/her talk page (not everyone knows they exist, especially those w/o accounts). In an ideal world, the person will now be unable to edit, and will start to respond to concerns. If not, then escalating blocks will have to be implemented. I don't watch any of the relevant articles, so please let me know if the problem resumes. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Will Do. I will add several of the other referenced ones to my watch list and let you know NECRAT^{Speak to me} 05:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finally blocking that editor, maybe now they might stop disrupting a ton of pages which I closely monitor. Noreplyhaha (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Like I mentioned to Necrat, these aren't pages I watch, so if it resumes again in 2 days, just come back here and let me know, and I'll re-evaluate. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The wrong path?

Isn't Mars exploration mission by India a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL? The article is full of "it is proposed" etc and it may never happen. Is this an example of us heading down the wrong path? - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the fact that it's actually got funding and research has begun makes me think it's probably notable enough for a topic--kind of like how it's possible to have a movie article once principle filming has started (and Indian movies often start before that, but fighting that tirade would be painful at best). If you look at Exploration of the Moon#Future exploration, you'll see 5 programs, some of which are about as far or farther in the future than the Mars exploration mission. It's possible that individual details maybe should come up (the more speculative ones, like the alternative propulsion systems being considered), but, overall, I don't mind the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the clarification.. I am more clear about the content to add. Keep up the good work ! Vence1234 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. 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) 13:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Indian politicians accused of crimes

Can you take a look at the articles within the category? All have "allegations", but no convictions. I've cleaned up some. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Zeeyanketu's talk page.
Message added 23:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

thanks for considering User talk:Ghajinidetails --Zeeyanketu ✉ 23:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

thanx!! --Zeeyanketu ✉ 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, I haven't had bubble tea in a long time (it's somewhat rare where I live now). Thanks! I don't know what's going to happen with Ghaijindetails once the block has expired, but as you saw, I tried to make it clear that the block wasn't just for sockpuppetry, but for the overall attitude being expressed. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

review (thorough) request

Mr. Qwyrxian, out of the list of references mentioned @ Talk:Jat_people#Important_Scholars_who_identified_Massagetaeans_as_.22Great_Jits_or_Jats.22_of_Asia, do You believe that none met WP:RS. Note that, 14 historians (so far) have been mentioned! please take some time to go through (links to learn more about them have already been provided. request is fair enough, guess! —117.207.60.13 (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know as much as Sitush does on the subject of history. But his general point is correct: very old sources, especially British sources, are nearly useless for caste information. We now know that said sources almost never did enough research to meet the standards we require for contemporary historical research. And the very fact that you chose someone like Dhillon, whom 60 seconds of research showed me isn't qualified to talk about history in any way, makes me sincerely doubt you're purpose here. It seems more like you know the "truth", and you're just looking for any source, reliable or not, that supports what you already believe. That's an acceptable way to live life, but not a very useful one for writing an encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Qwyrxian. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

We're looking to start improving Culture first! Happy editing! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Polite request

Hi there. Sorry to bother you. I put a rfc for [Celtic F.C. Supporters]] on the rfc board but no response yet, so if you have time I wondered if you could look at it? Thanks 220.255.1.77 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about football or about The Troubles. But you've only had the RfC open for a day--remember, they generally run 30 days or so. In a week or two, a bot will randomly notify some people about the RfC, which may well bring in more people. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Arshad Khan

Hi Qwyrxian, you recently undeleted the Muhammad Arshad Khan article. Would it be possible to undelete Talk:Muhammad Arshad Khan too? I imagine there was some relevant content there, if it needed to be deleted in the first place :) Sionk (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot--it's back. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for your feedback at Village pump

Hi Qwyrxian. I have a proposal at the village pump about introducing a color scheme to the text editor so it is easier for newer editors to differentiate between different kinds of syntax, particularly references. I'd welcome your feedback at the village pump. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.

Looks like you mistakenly delete the article instead of keeping per the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--there's an AfD closing tool that I use, with all of the closing options listed, and I clicked Delete instead of Keep. I've restored the article and reclosed the AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs

How exactly was it a delete? 66+ independent sources from MTV, Hollywood Reporter, Glamour Magazine, Huffington Post, etc. And all YouTube links were removed. I'm confused by your idea of notable. --MrIndustry (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Because those sources don't verify that "unreleased Lana Del Rey songs" is a notable topic. For lists, you need to prove that the subject of the list itself has been covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources--not that the individual items on the list have. For example, I guarantee that I could find sources that verified the existence of, and probably even talked in detail, about a whole bunch of people named "John" living in New York. I could probably even verify hundreds of these. However, I could not, per WP:LISTN, create an article entitled "List of people named John living in New York" unless I could also provide references discussing the aggregate topic. Note that my comment is really just summarizing and putting policies/guidelines to the consensus established at that AfD (since Till specifically requested which policies applied). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That still doesn't make any sense. All these articles talk about Lana Del Rey's unreleased music, and sources such as Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. think it's notable enough to write articles about this subject. There's not one single article from Huffington Post, etc. but multiple. It's not a one time thing. If this list can't be kept on Wikipedia then I'm confused as to why any of Category:Unreleased Songs are on Wikipedia.--MrIndustry (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and some of the sources were grouped songs, which would prove the point of Lana Del Rey's unreleased songs being the subject set of the article (in Wikipedia's terms). "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. " After reading this I'm really confused as to why this list was deleted because it 100% follows Wikipedia's WP:LISTN guidelines.--MrIndustry (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that as the closer I'm merely trying to line up what the consensus was on the discussion, and provide the policies and guidelines that coincide with the discussion since it was asked. Had a consensus at the article found that the list subject was notable, then I would have closed it as keep. The people arguing for deletion raised policy compliant answers, and those arguing for the article to be kept did not address the notability concerns, and rather simply asserted that individual items could be sourced.

If you think I didn't adequately judge the consensus, feel free to take the decision to WP:DRV. Alternatively, you could attempt to take the sources you found and see if the information would be appropriate to add to some other related article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the consensus of the discussion was no consensus since we couldn't agree. I think the deletion should be reverted, editors should have time to find good sources for all of the songs and the article should be discussed again at a later point. teammathi 13:38, 27 August 2012 (CET)

As I said, the requirement is not sources for each of the songs, its for the overall subject matter. Regarding the broader issue, consensus does not mean unanimity (as the page itself tells us). Particularly with reference to AfD discussions, consensus must be weighed with reference to policies and guidelines--otherwise, every article where someone said, "But I like it and its useful" would automatically be kept, even though policy says not to. As I said to MrIndustry, if you think I judged consensus incorrectly, you're welcome to take the matter to WP:DRV. While I believe that the arguments which were policy-compliant overall seemed to favor deletion, I freely admit to being fallible. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

An IP user is constanly vandalising Turkey. I told another sysop but I understand he is not online or too busy. Your intervention will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. marie (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tinchy Stryder → Kwasi Danquah III

Hi Qwyrxian how are you. The name that this person (Kwasi Danquah III) uses is his birth name of Kwasi Danquah III, as he is a businessperson and derives his income from the occupation of being a businessman and business magnate and from his companies that he owns, and not from being a part-time musician two to three months a year. The name Tinchy Stryder is what Kwasi Danquah III uses as a stage name when he only releases music two to three times a year, such as in the case of Sean Combs and the stage name P Diddy. There is a another pseudonym that Kwasi Danquah III uses which is "Star in the Hood" and named after his clothing company "Star in the Hood (company)", where else in another case, Sean Combs uses his first and second birth names "Sean John" for his clothing company. The point being made here is that the name that Kwasi Danquah III uses and prefers is his birth name Kwasi Danquah III, such as Sean Combs prefers to be called by his birth name Sean Combs, as he is a businessperson and he only releases music two to three times a year under the stage name P Diddy. I have requested a formal move on Wikipedia:Requested moves as you suggested. The title and correct title should be his birth name Kwasi Danquah III. I'am strongly pleading Qwyrxian, the correct title is his birth name Kwasi Danquah III. MarkMysoe (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian - this is a mess, check through Mark's contribs for other recent edits and page moves which change Tincy to Kwasi - against consensus. I have warned him for this and will block if he continues. GiantSnowman 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

MarkMysoe. Two things. First do not attempt to do a move, because you clearly don't know how, and messing it up messes up the attribution. Second, you need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I have, literally, zero (none, no, nada, 0) opinion on what the correct title of the article should be. Furthermore, I don't intend to weigh in on the discussion. But when various people disagree with a move/title change, it is absolutely necessary that you discuss the issue first before making major changes. Wikipedia requires collaboration, and when people disagree, we discuss until we get consensus (as best as we can).

GiantSnowman, if you believe the refusal to discuss has reached the point of disruption, I trust you. I'll be off WP for at least 12 hours, so feel free to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the encyclopedia. MarkMysoe, please understand, when someone refuses to discuss an issue, we have no choice but to block them. It's time for you to discuss the issue. While the discussion is ongoing, do not move or attempt to move the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Block averted - for now at least - as there is a RM ongoing. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

European Youth Press

After adding around 50 resources--including resources from reliable sites like European Parliament, Council of Europe...--the wiki page was deleted. I'd like to inquire what is needed to be done in order to have the page published again. Is it possible to submit a draft you could revise before I publish it again?

I am new to Wikipedia and I would really like to create the page properly. And yes--I would like to create a new one because I really think an established organisation with 50.000 members and many large-scale projects deserves it. Especially as there's so many other (often smaller) youth organisations with similar/less developed pages that are still published (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Esperanto_Youth_Organization, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Alliance_Youth, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeunesses_Musicales_International, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Christi_International)

Thank you for your answer!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasemajor5 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could certainly work on a draft, and then I would be willing to review it when you're done. I have copied the article into your userspace, to User:Phasemajor5/European Youth Press draft. You can work on it there at your leisure. Some suggestions for improvement:

1. The most important thing the article lacks--and the reason it was deleted--is a demonstration of notability. In general, per WP:GNG, notability is established by providing multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the organization in detail. Even though that article contains a lot of "references", they are almost all from the organization's members. That, by definition, is not independent. Similarly, the European Parliament reference is not independent, because it's actually the Parliament talking about its own event. What you should be looking for are newspaper articles or parts of books published by reliable publishers that talk about the organization in detail.
2. Note, too, that references that only verify information about the constituent members in no way verify the notability of the parent organization.
3. The amount of information on constituent members is excessive. This article should be about the umbrella organization, not all of the specific members. If the EYP is the notable entity, than the article needs to be about it.
4. Related to #3, you definitely need to remove all of the links to the members organizations themselves. Those links do not meet our guideline on external links, because they, again, aren't directly connected to the subject, and aren't necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.

Let me know if you have further questions, or if you want me to review a draft. Again, I recommend starting by taking out all of the excessive details, and then working from the ground up to verify the group's notability. Two final notes: the number of members itself does not effect notability (in a Wikipedia sense), and the existence of other articles is not relevant either. It's possibly those other articles you linked to should also be deleted; alternatively, it's possible that they have received the type of independent coverage necessary to verify notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh

Shouldn't this article be fully protected? Torreslfchero (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; I've adjusted the protection now. Thanks for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (2nd nomination) silly question

I read the close 3 times and it hit me. If the song is "unreleased" how can it be uploaded to YouTube? Dlohcierekim 13:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know; I assume "unreleased" means that it was never put onto an album or downloadable music site; and I'd further guess that the youtube videos are concert footage, either fan made or possibly even "officially" released as concert footage (but not as a song). Either way, it doesn't really effect the close. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

True. It just seemed nonsensical for singer to "not release" her music like that. Dlohcierekim 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala

Hi, if you can, could you pls have a look at Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala. I think we have a sock puppet. Cossde (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's the master? The last spi filed on people editing related to Sri Lankan colleges is still pending and not really going anywhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Royal College Panadura

I am sorry to drag you into this dispute again, but Cossde has unilaterally moved the above article to Panadura Royal College even though I had objected in the past. I have started a new discussuion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If you objected, why didn't you participate in the RfC I started about a month ago? These Sri Lanka colleges have been having edit wars about the name for more than a year, and yet nobody wants to bloody well find the references and verification to actually decide on what the correct title is. We need to figure it out. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't participate in the RfC because I had already made my views clear in a number of discussions on the schools' talk pages. A RfC is for outside input. I agree that this should be sorted once and for all.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For catching those pronouns I missed! Insomesia (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was another editor on the talk page, but I'm glad it's fixed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. 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) 14:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Another wingnut

User_talk:71.233.208.112 He keeps changing radio station definitions with unconstructive edits. Redefining the established radio stations which serves the markets they do. His edits have been mostly reverted by myself, but also other editors have too. So far everything he/she's edited has been reverted to the correct format, and also been warned. I don't know what else to do with him, aside from keeping an eye on his edits and reverting all the poor editing. Can you take a look and see if there is anything that can be done about him. Thanks! NECRAT^{Speak to me} 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh...as you pointed out yourself, the edits aren't all wrong, some of them are just personal opinion or mal-formatted. Plus, it's coming very irregularly. Even if I blocked few days, xe probably wouldn't even notice, because he only edits once or twice a week. If it keeps up over the next couple of weeks, let me know and I'll try blocking. Meanwhile though, please try to actually communicate with the editor--explain what's wrong. Those templates wouldn't make sense to me if I was a new editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well he just keeps on doing it and it's getting more frequent now too. Other editors have reverted his nonsense edits now too. Special:Contributions/71.233.208.112. I've tried to reach out to him via his talk page, and he ignores it. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for 2 days. Let me know if the problem resumes after that. The IP's editing isn't that frequent, so I can't guarantee xe'll even notice being blocked, but more than that for what appear to be good faith changes (even if wrong) is too much to start. I can always reblock again for longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Eton Manor Boys' Club

Would you temporarily delete this redirect to make way to move this AfC submission which I am going to accept? I have expanded the article and believe it is sufficient for a separate article. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All deleted. Feel free to move it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you're also free to restore the revision of the redirect. SwisterTwister talk 14:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:India.
Message added 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All we are saying is just mention the verifiable fact (I, BTW, gave sources too) or, as you others may call it, "assertion" that there are "segregation" (not to be confused with the word "caste") in other creeds of Indian society also. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Other Clan Names (Titles)

I have commented on your query/concern pls have a look Talk:Pal-Kshatriya. Thanks --Jalaj Singh (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably gone

As with several others who are considering their position - and some good ones such as Sodabottle who appear already to have given up - I am struggling to see the point any more. I think that I am gone. The continual dealing with puffery, reinventing the consensual wheel and well-intentioned do-gooders who simply do not understand the big problems and place undue faith in the goodness of human nature is just too much. We've had the occasional disagreement and the same can be said of others - Boing, Blade, Salvio, MatthewV etc - but none of that is significant because there is (I hope!) mutual respect regarding where this thing is going and for our various positions on specific issues. I hoped to be able to offer more, and more widely (LAncashire botanists!), but instead I am finding myself battling the same stuff, time and time again.

I'll probably be off for a few days, and I may not be back. My thanks to you, the others named above and those who I have omitted who really should have been name-checked - there are quite a few (Fowler&fowler, Regentspark, Drmies, Malleus and Spiffy come to mind). I wish you all well. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that and hope that you come back refreshed, or at least not so discouraged. I do appreciate your hard work. I hope that your week and weekend improve and that we see you back. Best regards. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Just happened to notice this thread 'cause your talk still on my watchlist. I took a long wikibreak feeling the way you describe and came back refreshed. Hope that helps. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also very sorry to see you go. You do good work--better than most because you have a broad grasp of history and sourcing that helps you pinpoint when information is or is not useful. On the other hand, your good work often becomes scorned because so many people simply don't want good writing--they just want articles to reflect their own POV. I think you've been hampered by the fact that you've been working in a very contentious subject area that most en.wiki editors don't realize is contentious...and since there are so many nooks and crannies, you end up being the sole victim countless times. I'll send you an email in the next few days with more thoughts. In the meantime, no matter what, good luck and good health (as best as you can). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I too am very sorry to see you go. I too hope this is temporary, that you will return soon, recharged and refreshed, ready to do more battle with the obscurantist cretins that dog caste-related articles on India. I too will send you email soon. Meanwhile enjoy the respite (which in many ways I envy). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, you have helped to improve several articels and you have also guided me in certain areas like citation, copy vio etc. I feel you should continue in guiding newcomers; I hope you will return after a few days, after forgetting all the "threats/arguments".Rayabhari (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal#Requested_move

Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for closing Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal#Requested_move.

After careful reading, of the discussion, the close, and WP:SOVEREIGN, I decided it was a very good close. You did well to not be swayed by the late pile-on. I, for one, had not considered everything that others had said.

You might improve the close by the following edit:

"However, Walrasiad made a strong case against the move, refuting the nomination and citing WP:SOVEREIGN. nNot a single person raised an argument that is compliant with WP:SOVEREIGN, or, alternatively ..."

.

P.T. Aufrette did raise a good counterpoint (Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person), but in reference to WP:SOVEREIGN, Brazil is decidedly not Europe, and his did not sufficiently outweigh Walrasiad's case.

Thanks again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pedro III of Portugal

Hello, Qwyrxian. I saw that you closed the move request on Peter III of Portugal. Your claim, I'm sorry to tell you, is flawed. You probably missed the point that in English sources the name of Portuguese and Brazilian monarchs (which are closely related to each other) are almost always kept in their native tongues. This is why we have Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, who is also King Pedro IV of Portugal, and not "Peter I" and "Peter IV". This is also why his grandson is widely known as "Pedro V" and not "Peter V". Or why we have Miguel I of Portugal and not "Michael I". I have no idea why you believe that we are ignoring Wikipedia rules and when they are clear that we should use what most sources say.

You went as far as to say "i.e., to substantiate the claims made that "Pedro" is the more common name, which no one showed any evidence for." This reveals that you did not bother to read the move request. I'm right now the most experienced editor on everything related to Brazilian/Portuguese history on Wikipedia and I wouldn't have asked for the move if that was what the sources tell. On my request I showed the numbers on Google books [7] and several other editors, most of whom are part of the "Empire of Brazil task force" (and thus are people with interest on the subject) agreed with my point of view. I'm asking you to reconsider. --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And another editor clearly showed that your numbers were wrong. I have a fair amount of experience with just how difficult it is to coax accurate results out of Google searches (the short version is, it generally requires a lot of negatives and hand counting). Your Google results cannot be correct, because you have numbers over 1000, and Googlehits are never accurate over that number; Walrasiad explained the flaw in your search, and after doing so, no one refuted his argument or offered a counter argument. This was the whole problem--you asserted a claim, but your evidence was obviously flawed (as the other editor pointed out). Others supported your claim, but provided no evidence. A requested move always defaults to no move unless consensus is strong to show the current title is wrong, and the consensus is soundly based in policy. As an additional point, you have the unfortunate burden of having to prove your point extra strongly, because WP:SOVEREIGN says that if you can't determine which term is more common (i.e., if they're approximately equal), then we use the anglicized form. So per the guideline, you have to demonstrate that a preponderance of sources support his birth name, or find some sort of argument to show why the guideline is inapplicable in this case (the latter is actually nearly impossible, since this is exactly the case the guideline is written for). All you need to show is that the data clearly supports your position, and get people to agree that it does. But if you cannot do so, you cannot simply assert that the majority of sources use your preferred name. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

FactStraight said: "Having re-considered my !vote based on revised data submitted by Walrasiad, below, I continue to support this move per the arguments, also below, of Necrothesp and P.T. Aufrette."[8] P.T. Aufrette said: "We already have Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, and common usage seems to be similar for Portugal. Indeed, it would be incongruous to say Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person. The first name 'Pedro' is by now quite familiar to English speakers in general contexts, which probably drives the modern usage of 'Pedro' rather than "Peter" for the sovereigns."[9]. If some us ignored ignored Walrasiad was because he is a troublesome editor who once reported an administrator and several editors at the ANI because they disagreed with him on a move request. It doesn't make sense that we have Pedro IV of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal and at the same time Peter I of Portugal and so on. You're incorrect when you say that my arguments are wrong because one editor said so. Since you opted to ignore that Wikipedia says that we should use what most sources say as well as the opinion of several editors (many of whom are highly experienced in the subject being discussed) I'd like to ask you to reopen the move request and let the discussion continue. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is disappointing; there clearly is a consensus to move the page. What happens at these move discussion is that participants hostile to anything non-English scream bloody murder at every move request and toss worthless ghits numbers about. SOVEREIGN is a crap guideline that is biased towards a POV; many guidelines are. Those motivated are the LOCALCONSENSUS that built them, and once they've a wall in place, they fight tooth and nail any suggestion that it be changed. Happens all over this benighted project. Most editors don't care to get involved in such insipid rule-mongering, so endless regressive rules impede reasonable improvements. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit: Okay, then we'll use the rules at WP:Article titles. Since those say that the number one determining factor is what the sources use, then the result is the same. Regarding Walled gardens, that is an appropriate comment--because it looks to be exactly what Lecen is trying to create here. That's exactly why I closed the way I did--a local group (editors with familiarity/interest in the previous Brazilian empire) is trying to create a local consensus that overrides site-wide guidelines.

Lecen: I absolutely agree that the guideline says that we should use the name most sources use. And the evidence presented in that discussion is that that name is Peter. Your evidence is flawed, an editor there explained why and I explained why in a different way. As even the most basic point: your search didn't eliminate non-English results, a mandatory step in such a search. A move discussion whose argument is based upon the claim that the preferred title is the one used in sources must present evidence of that claim. There are a several different things you can search for. For example, you can use Googlehits, but actually do the search correctly. Alternatively, you could do hand searches through scholarly articles--what are the major historians in the field using? Or you could lay out the top 10 tertiary sources, and see what they use. Or college textbooks. Whatever you do, the burden is on those requesting the change to present evidence and arguments.

So, at this point, I won't re-open the discussion, because it's not about getting more votes (and to be clear, that's exactly what I perceive the vast majority of the comments in that discussion to be)--it's about getting more data. But as I said, if you want to gather more data, and start over again, you are welcome to do so. I could have phrased it more clearly regarding the ability to open a new discussion, so I'll add a comment about that to the article now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God. You've just admitted that you closed the move request because you oppose it. You didn't come as a neutral observer. You actively oppose the move. You shoudn't forget that if we have now Featured Articles like Pedro IV of Portugal, Pedro II of Brazil, Empire of Brazil and others are thanks to me who made a careful research. Let's take a look on what English sources say, shall we? The sole biography in English about Pedro IV call his grandfather (Pedro III) by his name in Portuguese.[10] The biography of Emperor Pedro II (son of Pedro IV and great-grandson of Pedro III) also uses "Pedro III".[11] Notice that in the genealogical chart the Portuguese/Brazilian royals have their name in Portuguese, while veryone else is Anglicized. Thus, the author clearly prefers the name in Portuguese, not in English. What about the latest biography of Princess Isabel? It's not only a biography of her as well of all monarchs of the House of Braganza (including Pedro II, Pedro III, Pedro IV and Pedro V). It also uses "Pedro III"![12][13] There are no biographies in English of Pedro III, nor of his son João VI (who was also co-Emperor of Brazil). There are, however, books about the history of Portugal. They also use "Pedro III".[14][15][16] His wife is never called "Mary I", but always "Maria I". I'm going to ask you again to reopen the move request. P.S.: Do not, ever, again accuse me or any member of the Empire of Brazil task force of acting on bad faith. Do it again and I will report you to the ANI. --Lecen (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(before ec)No, I admitted that I closed it because I looked at the RM page, went to the last one, looked at the discussion, and saw a group trying to circumvent policy by building a local consensus, and I, in my role as an admin, enforced policy (guidelines) to ensure that did not happen. Admins are, in fact, supposed to do that. I literally have absolutely no opinion on Pedro vs. Peter--in all honesty, I had never even heard of him until I came to this discussion. Regarding the details you give above--great! Start a new discussion and present those. Give other people the chance to argue for or against them (for example, I have no idea about how much weight we should give that book...but I trust that a discussion could figure that out). Get Google results that actually are correct. Whatever. Just get the data and restart the discussion. The reason you have to start over is that the discussion as it stands now is irreversibly tainted--it's full of votes based on opinions rather than discussion based on evidence. Again, please understand--I did not close the discussion as "Consensus is to not move the article". I very very much mean "There is currently no (policy-based) consensus from this discussion, but a new discussion in the future could establish a consensus". At this point, you have two choices: 1) gather the data and start a new discussion; 2) take me to WP:AN and argue that my close was improper in some way (you've already laid the groundwork for such an argument above, even though I'll of course argue that my close was exactly what admins are supposed to do when assessing consensus). Arguing with me here about whether it should be Peter or Pedro is useless, since I 1) have no opinion on the matter and 2) couldn't change the close based on my own opinion any way. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

(after ec)My sincerest apologies if you thought I was accusing you of acting in bad faith. I believe that you are absolutely trying to improve the encyclopedia as you think best. And, as I said, you may even be correct that the article title should change. But even though you're acting in good faith, you still have to do the same things every other editor does--build consensus that complies with policy and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See this. --Lecen (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You said, on the discussion about Peter III or Pedro III of Portugal that "there was no consensus about the move". Well, I do not understand why it's acceptable Pedro I of Brazil and not acceptable Pedro I of Portugal, since both countries speak the same language - Portuguese. If "the name in English must prevail" then it should prevail in all cases. Another example is Wilhelm II, German Emperor. Why not William II, German Emperor? Didn't anyone notice these cases? I'm more favourable to accept what the majority of voters manifested (12X4). If this will not occur, I think this discussion should at least be reopened. The way it was closed created a lot of discomfort for all voters. It seemed like "some rules are valid depending on how much noise and claim is done in order to make them effective, or not". My recommendation would be: accept what the majority manifested, or maintain the discussion opened. It's less energy loss. Best regards, Joao Xavier (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I noted a comment on the RM, which appears to still be open? and not closed-green-boxed (hence I left comment rather than simply support, mainly as I'm not fussed about royalty). I then received a note from Lecen about discussion here. It has to be said that the specific conflict of the consensus on the RM with NCROY isn't immediately clear from the current close summary, so maybe the current summary should be clarified. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given everyone the two options: restart the move discussion all over again using guideline-compliant arguments, or take me to WP:AN and claim I closed the current discussion improperly (In ictu oculi, I just used a different template to close it, though I suppose I could have used the green one). Debating the issue here gets you nowhere, because I believe that I assessed the consensus correctly in light of the guidelines. I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the point is that I am not the person you need to convince that Pedro is better. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Re (In ictu oculi, I just used a different template to close it, though I suppose I could have used the green one). Okay, I have never seen that one before. Would it be possible to change to the more familiar one - leaving it white may confuse others like it did me. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the point is that I am not the person you need to convince that Pedro is better." Then you shouldn't have closed the move request. --Lecen (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, when admins close discussions, they look at the arguments presented and see what consensus was achieved that is compatible with site rules. It's not just about counting votes--if that was it, you wouldn't need a "closer". Iio, i'll look around and try to find that template. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than WP:AN, the appropriate venue would be the relatively new WP:MR (move review). If someone wishes to pursue that, please go ahead (I personally just don't have the time at the moment). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank P.T. Aufrette. See, I've been an admin for about 2 years, and I'd never heard of MR. Ah, looking at the history, I see it started earlier this year. I have absolutely no problem with the discussion being taken there, if Lecen or anyone else wants to. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)