User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Savile. 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) 20:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ali mediation request

I've asked a question as a potential mediator at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ali. Please respond as you see fit. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request - fix?

You stated that you were declining the unblock request, but marked the template as accepting the response.[1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I copied the wrong template. It's fixed now. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall. 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. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A note on a recent block of yours

Regarding your recent block of Voyt13 (talk · contribs), please note that he only went to the talk page because the article was fully protected for a month, and immediately after the protection expired he re-inserted his preferred text back into the article, causing it to be fully protected again (it still is, until February). We've also had a good deal of socking going on (see User:Robert Warren) and I doubt we've reached the end of that road. Perhaps you could knock the protection down to long term or indefinite semi and keep an eye on this article? Thanks! N419BH 01:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who put on the protection originally if xe thinks that dropping to semi is a good idea. I support it, but I try to avoid undoing other administrative actions without consultation. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur Qwyrxian. Please take over herding cats on this page will you? Have very very limited internet access at the moment. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Will do! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hello, I edit the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page and these two usernames Amitabh2 and Filmonline111 are the same person. They change the article and add biased information. The same man is pretending to be two people to get the majority opinion. He writes the same things through the two accounts. It's obvious. If someone were to look at the IP addresses it would be evident. Please help me. Ashermadan (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While I can't look at underlying information like IP addresses (only people called checkusers can do that), no one is allowed to do it without evidence. I've just scanned through both of their contributions, and I don't immediately see any obvious examples of identical editing. Can you please provide diffs (see WP:DIFF for an explanation of how to get those) of edits that you think are the same? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		for your particularly gentle, yet firm, dealing with Pratik12951 (talk · contribs) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I still hold out hope that maybe, just maybe, there could be a salvageable editor underneath the user's aggression...but we'll see. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion

How do? Your opinion is sought here, should you be willing. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I was fairly sure of my ground but, well, it has not been a great couple of weeks. There is something not right with this user situation. I am not the first to notice it but since doing so I am back on meds that do have the potential to skew things (most significantly, a disturbed sleep pattern). This is an odd starting point given policy "knowledge" and this is still more odd, especially bearing in mind the diffs therein. I've checked the notes that come with my meds and they say nothing about paranoia! - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Answered via email. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability

Hi. Can you please check whether Vijay Gaur is notable (BLP), which I have created recently? Thank you.Rayabhari (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that it's right on the border. There's only one source provided that discusses the artist in depth, as required by WP:GNG. He holds an award (the Limca record), but it's not really a national or state-wide award--more of just a record of accomplishments. I know that just because someone holds a Guinness World Record doesn't make them automatically notable enough for inclusion. However, I'm usually willing to give the benefit of doubt in a case like this, where the artist is from a country with a lot of non-English media. What I'd recommend doing is looking for a non-English source or two that discuss him in detail (I'm guessing that you can read more than one language). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for balanced opinion. I will try to find at least one more source. His sculpting of 4 ton statue drew my attention.Rayabhari (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General. 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) 20:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Finally ,you have blocked User talk:Ghajinidetails as expected by me and that is good for wikipedia but editors like him never take lesson and create user accounts again & again ,I concern it might be created again by him but i have no evidence now.I suspect this User:Hx96772 although it was created long time ago.I am not sure whatever i am asking is appropriate or not.Thanx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 21:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not seeing the similarity. Yes, there's all editing on Indian film articles, but the style doesn't seem the same. I see some overlap in topics, but not a clear enough overlap to really do anything. Are Hx96772's edits a problem besides the possible sockpuppetry issue? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah,this user's edits has been a little strange,didn't commit a serious vandalism unless i am very much mistaken but disruption continues in spite of warnings but not frequently.It's not natural for an editor who had created user account 10 months ago.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 02:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't get it

Our child editor , User_talk:71.233.208.112 continues to make poor disruptive edits. His last three edits were all reverted. He hasn't had a single edit stay. I thought he was getting the hang of it but he's not. The last three reverts where from other editors too, so it shouldn't be considered Wikihounding or harrassment. I've tried to help him a number of times. Not sure where to go next. NECRAT^{Plates On} 05:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

He's only edited a few times since the block, and the last time was about 8 days ago. Blocking for events that happened that long ago would be inappropriate, especially since we have no real way of knowing how long that specific IP address will be assigned to that specific person. But if it picks up again, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was asking more what else could we do to guide him. I really wasn't suggesting a block, but more of how to help him. I think he means well, but doesn't get it. NECRAT^{Plates On} 17:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

fine sir.

Harishrawat11 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove edit summary

First, kudos on refraining from blocking 87.232.1.48 (talk · contribs) over the edit summaries at Prohibition in the United States. Not sure I would have shown the same restraint, although after reviewing your logic, I believe restraint was warranted, and the IP apparently took heed of your admonition, which is good. I do wonder, however, if it might be appropriate to hide one or more of the offending edit summaries since A) they do violate WP:CIVIL and leaving them might make other editors think this is OK and B) it might be a good way to show Rjensen (talk · contribs) that his complaint was taken seriously without resorting to a block. I'm a relatively new admin and rarely use the tools except in clear-cut cases, but I'd like to hear your reasoned opinion so I can grow more comfortable making judgment calls like this in the future. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good suggestion, and I've deleted those edit summaries now. To be honest, I don't often think of rev-del, except in the most extreme cases, but this is exactly what it's made for. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For helping an uncivil IP editor acknowledge his mistake and change his tone without resorting to a block, providing a nice case study for a relatively inexperienced admin like myself, I present you this barnstar. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

PE2011 and possible edit wars

Hello. I just wanted to bring to your attention that PE2011 has threatened an edit war simply because...after HOURS of back and forth discussion...we disagree with his position about the whole VINE issue and the inclusion of their ideas. He refuses to budge on the issue even though most of the editors wish to move on. He also maintained that if he chose, he "can 'easily' recruit 20+ B&L supporters and have them weigh in." I do not feel that his threats of an edit war, much less recruiting others to join in, is conducive to measured discussion. Thank you for your time.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Block request.

I would like to request a block for User:WWEJobber. He is being disruptive to the aritcle List of WWE personnel, and I really don't feel like engaging in an edit war with him (or anybody else for that matter). Thank you. Vjmlhds 19:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for a block--the user never had more than 2 reverts in 24 hours. Please note that adding new information is never a revert. Arguably, you have more reverts than WWEJobber does. Both of you, though, would be better off doing more discussing on the article's talk page (not each other's user talk pages, because that won't let you see what other editors think), and less reverting. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Concern

I know it isn't her website, our concerns were that, it was being used more as a format for gossip and not factual information. I read up on all the rules and understand that I am apparently not allowed to add facts and remove inaccurate information. Thank you for your help.JSWalti (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if you'll see this, but you can still contribute: just go to the article's talk page and discuss the suggested changes there. If you don't have any success that way, you can ask for help--we have a whole variety of dispute resolution processes, and I'd be happy to help you use them if you like. Finally, if there is a serious problem--like if the article is spreading negative, unsourced claims about Villegas, please have someone officially part of the organization email WP:OTRS, and they can help as a liason between your organization and Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Request regarding my user pages

Do you mind deleting my user pages and create-protecting them: Whenaxis (talk) and Vanished user (talk·vector page). If you have any questions or if there any problems, please contact me by email. Regards, Whenaxis (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted and protected User:Whenaxis, but I can't protect the vanished user page, because I have no way of knowing that it's you; you'll need to ask the bureacrat who renamed you after vanishing. Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Block request

As you said in my talk page "you've never had more than 2 reverts in 24 hours (and Vjmlhds has more reverts than you do in the same time periods)." and in your own you replied to him "you have more reverts than WWEJobber does.". So, please, can you block him per the 3RR? He is the kind of user that does not like to discuss and always do POV-pushings. Thanks for your attention. WWEJobber (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't crossed 3RR either. 3RR means more than 3 reverts in a 24 hours period. Both of you need to knock of this "block this other user who irritates me" attitude, go to the article talk page, and discuss the suggested changes. You don't have to like everyone else who edits on Wikipedia, but you do have to try to edit together with them. If you can't solve it between yourselves, let me know and I'll point you in the right direction to get wider community help. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. The fact is that he is inciting other users against me. You can see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_WWE_personnel#House_Shows He went to the article discussion page, not to talk about the article, but to incinte people against me. His line there: "Jobber is being disruptive, and I feel he is in line for a block.". There is not the place for such a comment. This kind of comment do not help to improve the article. And the other user said "Block him, he's being disrespectful to the WP:PW and Wikipedia as a whole." I never was disrespectful to the Wikipedia. I am here just to help and to improve. This kind of comments on a public discussion page that is disrespectful. Can you help in this one? WWEJobber (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I proposed a page for deletion here [2] because the page is not too long and merge it with the main article of the film Son of Sardaar after consulting with others and i wont revert it again because of policies but this user User:Filmonline111 refuse to listen and not cooperating .I suspect him to be the same user we both encountered once(i believe you remember).---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 08:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

As expected he have two more accounts and they are blocked indefinitely too.I am just wondering how many more he have.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 12:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Block request

He's back. You had asked me to inform you if this editor persisted with bad faith edits. You've twice blocked him so far. Yes, please make the block much longer. - Fanthrillers (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked for 2 months this time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation question

Hi Qwyrxian. I need you to advise me on wiki policy in the following matter. User 50.133.218.158 has copied text from other websites including the Family Guy fan wikia. The "Family Guy fan wikia" has a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA). The license clearly states that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." Depending on your instructions, it may not be necessary for me to see if the other affected websites have a "share license". This is his edit. I can verify that his/her edit copies the site verbatim. - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's okay to copy from another CC-BY-SA cite, but the editor would have to comply with whatever their attribution requirements are. For most wikis, this means a link back to the prior article, which could be done in an edit summary. Now, I could have corrected the problem simply by making a null edit (like, adding or removing a space somewhere), and adding the link...but the new summaries seemed significantly worse than the older ones. As such, just reverting was fine. One additional thing to check, though, if you see that kind of copying, is to make sure that it wasn't copied from somewhere else. Notice how the plot summaries the IP gave allegedly from wikia are only teasers--none of them give away the ending of the story, or, really, many details. As such, they look, to me, to be exactly like the kinds of summaries found in TV guide listings; so much so that I bet that someone first copied them into Wikia from a TV listing, then brought them here later. Just because someone put something on wikia doesn't remove the original copyright. And, even if they were written by hand, Wikipedia does not want teaser summaries--our principle is always that when we summarize a fictional work, we summarize the whole thing, and do not attempt to avoid "spoilers". If the problem persists, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow!

Have you seen this? Wow, perhaps I'd better steer clear of them! - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ooh! the user is really strange.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 19:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm...that's worrisome, but I don't know if there's anything specific we should do about it. I do have a bit of a concern that that the person's POV is interfering with their ability to neutrally edit pages on related topics...but I don't konw if it goes far enough to warrant intervention. I'll dig a little farther. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a bit extreme but I doubt it breaks any policies etc. The Asperger's might be reflected but, hey, we have plenty of editors with health issues, including not a few with that particular one. Nonetheless, although I have interacted previously, I think that I will try to stay away. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, one thing that struck me - and made me think that it may be "of its time" - is that they refer to having a girlfriend but also have a userbox saying that they want a girlfriend.I know that userboxes are often bizarre and often used contradictorily but even if the statement in the diff did perchance step over some policy mark, I'd be inclined to let it stay for a while. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about Wikipedia, than I am about the person himself. Isn't this one of those things where, after something bad happens, everyone says, "We should have seen the signs. We should have done something to intervene"? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. In which case, I think that the matter should perhaps be raised at AN or even ANI. I can do that if you think it appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia front, his recent edits need to be checked. For example, here he's adding a motive to the lead, whereas the article Red Lake massacre only talks of possible motives. He's done similar things with a few other articles - and has created Category:Victims of school bullying into which he's putting mass murderers. On the person front, don't go near the drama boards - take it straight to WMF. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WMF notified. I'll try to go through the edits later but - whoopee - I've actually been offered a bit of paid work this morning. About time, too! - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on the work as well! As for his edits, I'd consider leaving them alone for a day or so and see if WMF does anything, unless there's some sort of BLP problem--and I mean a real "problem" in the sense that someone is being defamed. Having a murderer in a category for a few days isn't going to necessarily harm anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Was just thinking the same myself - no need to antagonize him if he's in a bad phase. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I am hanging off. I do not want to exacerbate whatever may or may not be going on. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User Author 91

Can you please have a look on his edits & comments (see kshatriya).Rajkris (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't immediately see what's wrong with his addition. Do those refs not meet [{WP:RS]]? Is this because Gurjars are not universally held to be kshatriya? The first step is to try talking to that user. Could you start a new section on the article's talk page, then leave a note on the user's talk page to invite him/her to the conversation? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Cupp Edit

hi, i left a response on my talkpage. please get back to me when you can, thanks. Tjelsund (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Pho Page Edit

Hi Qwyrxian, could you please explain why have you decided that the external link is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? Pho.com is not a commercial website, it's dedicated to people who love Pho soup as well as other Vietnamese food and want to find/share/rate places where they can taste it. 5.164.160.4 (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

For the very reason you mentioned: it's a user created fan site. Wikipedia is extremely strict (or, at least, our rules say we are supposed to be) with external links. You can read the policy in detail at [{WP:EL]]; the relevant rules here are WP:ELNO #10 and #11. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I have read the policy, but actually it's a directory of Vietnamese restaurants rather than a user created fan site. 5.164.160.4 (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Wikipedia is not a business directory. External links should only be used when they materially add extra informational content to an article. I see nothing at that link that expands upon what the article says about Pho soup. In fact, it's not even specifically about Pho - it's a directory of all sorts of Asian restaurants. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Need some help from someone who knows the rules well

Hi, Qwyrxian,

How do I pronounce your user name anyway?

I'm sorry to bother you, but I need help in understanding the Manual of Style, and I need some clear answer from someone whose answer I can rely on as a basis when I work. I'm trying to understand "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section", in the "Relative emphasis" part, but it's not well-written. I've started a new talk regarding it here [3], at the bottom of the page. But the way things go , I might never get an answer. You've been working here long enough, and are familiar with lede sections, I believe. Can you help me answer the question? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've answered on the MOS talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, man, thank you. I finally got answer. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

• Kindly see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources. I see a majority of opposes to the RfC; while the closer of the RfC has plainly closed it as a support. Do you feel the closure is appropriate? Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 16:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it tonight, but given the comments from others I see after the closure, I'm willing to accept that the closure may have been flawed. I still wonder, though, if it would have been better to just raise that point, rather than reverting on the policy itself. But, even on that point, you may be right, since we should be more conservative in BLP than anything else. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You do have the right view. The best way should have been to bring up the issue on the talk page then perhaps revert post some discussions. Best regards and see you around. Wifione ^Message 17:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 67.169.134.89

Hello. The block (on 24 hours) and request does not help, this user (after the lockout) repeated massively change of articles, without discussion and consensus [4][5][6][7]. Subtropical-man (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reblocked for 1 week. Feel free to revert any edits that you do not feel are constructive. If the disruption happens again after a week, I'll have to go up to a month or two...but if the person hops IPs, this could be difficult. Keep me informed; the only article that the IP edited that's on my watchlist is Cleveland. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi. Can you just tell me whether Sher Ali Afridi created by me meets WP policies? particularly regarding notability? Thank you for your support. Rayabhari (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that, no, he's not notable. Simply killing one person does not make someone, and that appears to be the only thing Afridi did that is notable. Yes, murder can lead to notability, particularly when the person murdered is particularly important/famous, but it's not clear to me that a random British MP is sufficiently of high enough stature that his murderer deserves a page. Another way of what I'm trying to say is that those sources aren't really about Afridi, they're about Mayo; it's especially important that both people at the time and the scholars you cited don't seem to consider Afridi's actions to be part of a larger plan or political movement. As such, I think we're better served with just a few sentences in Lord Mayo's article. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha! I thought "yes" but did mention that some would probably prefer to see it merged! I'm going to do a bit of digging around about this event & the people involved. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, "Viceroy of India" is more than just some random British MP. He effectively governed India on behalf of the crown & wielded considerable power. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord Mayo was Viceroy , the highest authority of Government of India with vast powers and he was not just a MP. The thing is, Sher Ali Afridi had the courage to kill the supreme authority of India (a person comparable to present day Prime Minister/President) and one of the source tries to compare the killer to Jehadi (I think I have taken enough care not to drag such comparision into the article.) Rayabhari (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Old Gregorians

Hi, Would you be kind enough to take another look at the discussion on Talk:List of Old Gregorians?— Rod ^talk 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

List of WWE personnel

Hey, man, I noticed that you blocked the article, but the "Broadcast team" section became a mess. Can you please put the following under the "Broadcast team" section title? It should work. {| class="wikitable sortable" align="left center" style="width:65%;" Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it will get the page unlocked, I'll stand down about how to list Vince McMahon. It's not worth punishing others (who aren't involved in any of this) over a minor detail. Vjmlhds 04:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The McMahon issue isn't the problem, it's a symptom. You all need to learn how to edit together collaboratively. If you can come to a consensus on McMahn, use the {{edit protected}} template (without the tlx) to ask for an admin to make the edit for you. In the meantime, you all can discuss the other changes you think should be made as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash

First of all Voyt13 have contacted me before he was blocked and he "didnt brought me here" since I was interested in this particular article longe before that. But anyway, thats not important. Blocking indefinitely is wrong idea in my opinion, dont see much reasons for it, as I have rad all that "investigation" thing, but some may see them.. I dont think there is any "problem for me" as u described it, its very easy to exclude somebody from the discussion claiming reasons u stated. I noticed that kind of behavior a lot in Wikipedia, so I just have to get use to it cos it is impossible to change it as far as my experience is. Anyway, I would like u to read my posts on the discussion page and answer me according to the facts I put forward. Thanks--FitJock87 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered your questions there. I am not involved in the content dispute itself--I'm acting in an administrative capacity on that article, so I can't respond to the actual details of what does or doesn't go in the article. I can tell you that, as far as I can see, most of those points have already been discussed before, so you should look at the prior discussions—just because you weren't here for them doesn't mean people have to repeat themselves because you've been canvassed to join the article discussion. Also, I can tell you that you're discussing the point from the wrong perspective: you're trying to argue about what's true, instead of arguing about weight and verifiability. You cannot argue that we have to include something because the science says X. You have to argue that we have to include X because a large number of sources include the opinion and it is a relevant part of the story. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. 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) 21:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen - edit war

Hi Qwyrxian, just writing back to you about the 3RR issue I had in relation to the Patricia Petersen page. Apologies if I did it incorrectly, rather new to the world of editing. I had read about the 3RR as previous editors of this page had been warned also (likely the same editor on a different IP) and that is how I found out about the process.

Just to follow up about some of the comments. I have tried to direct the IP editor who keeps reverting the page with the unverifiable material back to the talk page where I have a few times added issues I have had with the details added. On two occasions in the field for the reasons for my edit I have referred back to the talk page. Note that I have previously edited the page myself as an IP editor - but being that this was occurring on a shared computer for the most part I decided it would be better if I got an account. The other IP editor has no interest in engaging on the talk page, which is why I took the 3RR step. If you read the edit history and the talk page there are ongoing issues with self-interest edits on this page - and I don't want to see Wikipedia being used as an advertisement for Patricia Petersen, but rather just stating the facts (the splitting the Labor vote comment has no source and is merely opinion, and not an opinion stated by any political pundits).

Again, apologies if I have gone about these things the wrong way, but I was just tired of the continual reverts and the lack of engagement by the other editor on the talk page. Apollo Credence (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem; the real reason for declining is that we always have to warn people before blocking for 3RR, and that person essentially hadn't seen the warning. But, the result was actually better for the article; since the IP editor could easily keep hopping IPs (either unintentionally or on purpose), a block wouldn't have actually stopped them. Instead, semi-protecting the article stops the IP entirely, no matter how many times they hop. If the user returns to edit the article in the same way after the 1 week expires, let me know here and I'll take another look. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Kayastha

I should know this by now but, well, I don't. You've undone a revision that itself had the summary "Undid revision 523555463 ..." Is there any way to see the revision number of each contribution? I find occasionally that someone undoes an old edit of mine but, given my editing style, it can take me ages to find the thing. Of course (!?), they're usually wrong but I do like to check the sequence of events because I am not perfect etc.

And on the subject of editing style, a recent RfA candidate got trashed - among other things - with accusations of count-stacking, ie: making a lot of small edits to boost their edit count. I found that odd. I can see that in principle the system might be manipulated in such a way but (a) after a few thousand edits, the number is generally irrelevant and (b) I happen to think that my own micro-approach provides people with a better understanding of my rationale (& I assume that the same applied to the RfA canddiate). I'm currently having to micro-manage Sarekoppa Bangarappa precisely because the previous editor there did not do so - sorting that out is no big deal to me, but to read that this type of behaviour somehow makes one "less worthy" was a shocker. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

On the revert, that number is the number in the diff. So, for example, look at the URL for JonathanSammy's diff: [8]. The automatically generated edit summary of my revert of him says "Undid revision 524098465", which is the same number in the url after "diff=". Personally, I don't know why that is the information added; it is concise, which makes it good for an edit summary, but it isn't so easy to locate. You can scan somewhat quickly for them if you just mouseover the "diff" links in the history and watch the URL at the bottom of your browser.

On the RFA...I certainly wouldn't oppose on those grounds, unless I had reason to believe it was done intentionally. However, since I, like most voters (although I don't actually participate in RFA votes, but pretend that I did) have some sort of arbitrary "minimum number of edits", I would weigh the type of edits when seeing if they met my standard. In the same way, I used to measure "automated" edits differently as well, since it's not quite the same to do 10,000 Huggle edits as it is to do 10,000 manual edits—it's still work, it still shows judgment, but it's not quite the same. As for editing behaviors, I edit pretty much the same way you do, specifically so that I can leave more edit summaries and theoretically parts of my work could be reverted while leaving the rest. I also find it easier to edit sections rather than whole articles anyway, so it naturally tends to add more. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bashir

Every article that is pretty much cited under his profile is just like the Fox News article. I am sorry that it does not support your point of view. Any published media article that is cited will have some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trj1088 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it has "some bias"--the article isn't a news article. It is explicitly called an opinion article--look at the URL itself. That means it does not meet WP:RS. Like all news media, Fox carries both "factual" articles and "opinion" articles, and per WP:RS, opinion articles are basically never reliable sources, and especially not for negative claims about living people. My only "POV" is that I insist that the article follow Wikipedia principles, which your addition does not. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Got it. So bigotry is only accepted if it benefits your point of view. classy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trj1088 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No, information is acceptable only if it is verified by a reliable source. If you don't like that, there are thousands of other websites you can contribute to. But Wikipedia relies upon verification, and it relies upon only recounting things that RS find important enough to comment on. Please note that beyond following Wikipedia's policies, I have absolutely no POV--I barely even know who Bashir is, and would have never heard of him if I hadn't seen the WP article in question. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Statehood movement in Puerto Rico

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Jadeja

Could you check out recent stuff at Jadeja when you have a moment. I'm at 3RR of a sort (reverted the person three times, although not concerning the same issue). They initiated a thread at User talk:Sitush#Arbitrary heading 2. Oh, and both you and Boing! are due a t-shirt when I get round to it. I assume that you'll have no objections to being nominated. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now; your conversation on your talk page seems spot on, as usual. Let's hope the problem doesn't persist. And thank you for the offer on the t-shirt; I think I saw vaguely that they were doing something like that, but didn't read the details and forgot where it was. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my request for comment in the talk section of Sri Lanka

Can I remove disputed material? BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should wait a few more days, but then go ahead. If someone reverts you, try to take it back to talk and I'll ask them to do the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User conduct

Qwyrxian, please take a look at this comment by User:Cybermud. Cybermud was topic-banned in November 2011 and again in February 2012 precisely because of this kind of incivility and hateful rhetoric. He breached his second topic ban so that you had to extend it. He continues to denigrate ("POV pushing", "feminist task force", "self-righteous ideologues", "gender warriors" etc.) the handful of editors who've been working to improve the article in question. He goes so far as to compare them to „Klansmen”. This is clearly beyond the pale. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment was on a user talk page. It's polemic, but it's not, in my opinion, blatants offensive. He's not comparing editors to Klansmen, he's using a metaphor to point out what he believes is terrible POV slanting, implying that those improving the article are clearly feminists with an agenda of undermining the "true story" of men's rights. The comment does make it clear that he shouldn't even consider editing any articles within the topic, but it's not, in and of itself, sufficient to warrant any action (in my opinion). You'll certainly get no support at ANI for action to be taken against an editor for a comment in user talk space. However, should he repeat such an action, even out of mainspace, we could consider asking for another topic ban, if his actions are causing disruption. I'm going to live a polite warning on his talk page, but I don't see grounds for more than that. You could, conceivably, go to WP:ANI, but I strongly recommend against it, because the likelihood of action is so low that it actually hurts the possibility of action later should it become necessary, and also escalates the problem if Cybermud is going to try to behave in mainspace. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't angling for sanctions. I wanted someone to remind Cybermud to take it easy on the rhetoric. Your reminder was well-phrased and polite and did the job. Thank you and keep up the truly great work. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback: List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration

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

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:List of Directors of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

apologies for CSD's

Apologies for CSD's , I am trying to improve and also please note my intent is only to keep wiki clean Shrikanthv (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC) I have also rolled back some of articles which i had put for CSD , as i do understand this can de-motivate new contributers Shrikanthv (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Government forms

Are forms used by government bodies such as the IRS inherently notable? That is, can articles exist for each of those forms? - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

They're not inherently notable, but some of them certainly have received enough coverage...in fact, I'd be worried that if you tried deleting them, people would find lots of "references"--mainly from online brokerages and the like "explaining" or giving advice on them. And even trying to do WP:BEFORE to figure out which are notable and which aren't might be a hassle. So...no, not inherently notable, but not necessarily the easiest problem to rectify. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That is what I am finding out! Plenty of sources where you can download the thing or that give you basic instructions re: how to fill it in (pretty much the same instructions that are printed on the form). I am concerned that we'll end up with an article for every form used by one particular government department, and that all they really do is little more that what I've just described. Not to worry, it will sort itself out: it seems that WP:N/N is unlikely to be of much use, however, since their terms of reference are incredibly narrow. - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive protection

You've been used as a proxy to edit-war on Political activities of the Koch brothers. The fact is that we've made a lot of progress through the editing in the course of the RFC, and that while there had continued to be some talking, the matter is essentially over, and the fellow who made the request for protection came out on the losing side of the discussion; in fact there hadn't been an edit in twelve hours before you trashed all the work we did. Now you've undone it all, and we're likely to have the battle all over again because you've reopened the issue. I must ask you to undo this request, which was made in conspicuous bad faith. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I gather you didn't read my explanation on the article's talk page? Check back with me again after you have. But just to follow up on your concerns, I've now also read a good portion of the discussion, and I certainly do not see a consensus for inclusion. Equally as importantly, I don't actually see the discussion as having been finished at all--there are still ongoing discussions being had. Should you be able to obtain consensus, fine, do it, write it up, get a sizable number of the relevant editors to agree that there is consensus, and let me know (or use edit protected request if you don't think I'm neutral for some reason). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I did read your explanation; I do not have as negative a view of the progress of the RFC has you apparently do. At any rate the lack of further discussion of the text speaks for itself, not that I expect you to change your mind about protection. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Block expired

Hi, Qwyrxian. You protected the Decwar article last week after a SPA editor warred to keep his unsourced personal information in the article. As soon as the block expired, the editor returned and has again made the same problematic edits (Inserting his personal real name, his personal website, instructions on how to load and play his game, etc., without reliable sourcing and in violation of WP:PROMO). I've already explained the WP:RS and WP:PROMO policies to him, and I see you have also touched on some of that on his Talk page. My inclination is to revert his edit, but I thought I'd drop a note here first to see if you can suggest alternatives. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for 3 days and reverted the edit for edit warring. In order to facilitate the process, though, could you please go open a section on the article's talk page explaining why you think the article should be in the current version? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I already had a section open, but I added to it just now, outlining some of the problems with his edit. I toyed with the idea of moving the website information he is trying to add to the article into an external link instead, but even there I doubt I could defend keeping it if someone strongly objected per WP:ELNO. I'll wait to see if the other editor has any ideas. Thanks again for your help. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Need Help Please

jack o'connell(actor) is half irish and half british but when i stated this fact some admin termed him as english and then immediately locked the page just to overrule the views and opinions of other when i requested an edit they denied it even though on the talk page i have given a verified link where jack himself said that "i am half-irish" so could you please step in and make his nationality as irish-british as it is correct,please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.248.51 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The admin is correct. In the lead of an article, we never mention (or, are never supposed to mention) ethnicity. We only list nationality. Whil O'Connell claimed to be half-Irish, we have no evidence that he holds Irish citizenship. As such, we cannot include it in the lead. You may want to see if we can add it, sourced, to the life and career section. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Carson Grant

Hi, thanks for the work you've done on this article, there was a bit of a dispute regarding it between me and an IP editor who seemed to assume I was deliberately leaving the unsourced content in when I reverted their defamatory edits (in fact I just don't work much in content, only counter vandalism) also, thanks for fixing the template, for some reason I couldn't see the small padlock when it was originally applied. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 18:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Doncram

This is ridiculous but I guess I can do no more due to 3RR. They're running roughshod over the thing and yet have admitted to not understanding the subject. I've tried to help with a primer at Talk:List of Scheduled Castes but there is too much impatience. This is exactly the sort of thing that has caused them so many problems with the NRHP stuff, numerous blocks and what has now become an entrenched position. Please, let's hope this is not going to become the new pet project, or at least not until they have some background. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to wait for the AfD to finish, but, fine, he wants to start now, we can. This shit matters. Let me be clear--we will use every procedure necessary to ensure that the article contains only reliably sourced, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant material. I recommend that no one else do so, but I will be invoking the BLP exemption to 3RR if necessary. I've just made some "dramatic" counter-moves on the article and talk page. I don't really like the lead right now (his choices for what do and don't count appear arbitrary), but I'm not ready to go after it aggressively, and I'd rather deal with the more fundamental issues first. As I've said in the AfD, if ARS people insist on keeping the list, fine, if they believe that [{WP:N]] trumps everything else for article existence. But nothing trumps WP:NPOV and WP:BLP for article content. So if we have to have a list of 2 or 3 groups, so be it.

As for doncram...I can hear my fingers pounding on my keyboard. This is the sign to myself that I'm agitated. I can't possibly think of anything I could say about doncram and his inclusion in this field, on which he seems to know less than me (and I don't know that much), that would not fall under WP:NPA. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the above until after I'd done this. Feel free to block me for 3RR. I'm out of it for a few hours, doing other stuff. God help us if Orlady or someone spots what is happening because there is some serious history there. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi

Hello! In responding at Talk:Tau Epsilon Phi, I noted the WP:Outing of a newly registered account. I did a quick removal of the IP where it was explicitly linked, but could use someone with a mop to clean it up in the history. It may be that it should be cleaned up further in the earlier comments too, I am unfamiliar with the best way to handle a mid-stream change. Can you take this? Thanks, (and Cheers!) --Tgeairn (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't that user explicilty state "I'm the person who used to be IP #"? If so, WP:OUTING no longer applies. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm getting cross-eyed staring at it, but I don't see the registered editor saying that they are the IP. I did remove a "I didn't mean to edit while logged out" statement that linked the two by then getting autosigned, so kinda gray. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

From Whitetararaj! About Jubail!

See User:Qwyrxian, not only Jubail, Dammam is also having big lists of hotels. Why don't you delete that? I will make again about the tourism in Jubail!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitetararaj (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The correct solution is to remove the problems from Dammam, not add more policy violations to Jubail. Feel free to do the former (removal) whenever you like. There are over 4 million articles on Wikipedia, and over 90% of them need more work. We welcome the help—just follow the rules while you do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Because it was fast, I already trimmed out a bunch of the problems on Dammam, though I'm sure it could use more work. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that contributor's vandalism of your user page. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. And what a random piece of vandalism that was.... Qwyrxian (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Had I said Manchester, I might have left it alone. Here, you would be welcomed and the association would be a nice bit of puffery <g> - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Help WP

As an admin with experience on nationalist disputes in WP, I would like to request your attention to the article List of islands of Turkey, before an avoidable conflict flares up. Thank you very much. --E4024 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC) P.D. I asked protection for the article but I assume was not accepted...

Other than the TP of that article, this talk is also helpful to understand the issue, as user Macedonian presented a good role-model with their way of acting in this case. --E4024 (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh oh—if more people starting thinking I can help with nationalist disputes, I'm going to be in for a world of hurt sooner or later :). Well, I've commented there; I'm trying to balance between offering a suggestion (looking for a compromise), and still staying uninvolved so that I can act as an admin if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tau Epsilon Phi

Hi Qwyrxian. User:86.147.247.205 has been adding inappropriate content to Tau Epsilon Phi. This started shortly after I made some minor edits to the Legal section. First, 86 changed the last sentence of the Legal section into a very detailed, separate paragraph. They also added unneeded content to the second sentence of the section. I reverted those changes and explained why in both my edit comments and on the article's talk page, but 86 quickly added the content back anyway. 86 also added this lengthy, non-encylopedic content to the History section, which I discovered was entirely copy and pasted (verbatim) from this TEP fraternity page; a clear editing and copyright violation. I haven't done any more reverts, so all the inappropriate content from 86 is still in the article. Instead, I will leave it in your hands. Btw, thank you taking the initiative and doing such a good job of creating the Legal section. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I've reverted. There really is no issue here--that was a clear, unambiguous copyright violation, which cannot stand no matter what. I've warned the user; if they keep up the problem, I'll either ask for them to be blocked or for the page to be protected. Protecting would stop you and any other anonymous users as well, but would be necessary if 86 changes IPs (intentionally or unintentionally). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) But, actually, you warned the wrong editor. It was 86.147.247.205 who added the copy and paste/copyrighted content,[9] not 82.132.242.34. And you didn't remove that copy/pasted content; it's still in the article. ;) Also, with regard to the last sentence you had written in the Legal section, which 86 turned into a lengthy, unnecessary separate paragraph, 86's version is still in the article. Originally, it was simply your version: "In May 2011, the parties settled all outstanding cases and the fraternity agreed to hold new national elections.". That was perfect; concise and addressing all the key points. Now, it is: "In May 2011, the set­tle­ment approved by the United States Bank­ruptcy Court provided for the dis­missal of all claims against George Hasenberg (Executive Director), all Direc­tors and all Offi­cers of the Tau Epsi­lon Phi Fra­ter­nity, Inc. It also lent itself to the dis­missal of the Chap­ter 7 Bank­ruptcy Case and the sched­ul­ing of elec­tions of new offi­cers and direc­tors pur­suant to a Plan to be pro­vided by the Receiver in the New York Action. The Set­tling Par­ties have expressed sat­is­fac­tion with the set­tle­ment, thank each other for the coop­er­a­tive spirit of the set­tle­ment, and look for­ward to the future of the Fra­ter­nity.". As you can see, the original version is much better. The changed/current version is very poorly written and contains totally unnecessary content. The Legal section should go back to the way it was prior to 86 changing any of it. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing; I didn't see that there were two different 8*** IP addresses editign in a row. I've gone back to an earlier version. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. The multiple 8's made it confusing. What 82 actually did was change some very good wording to some very odd wording, such as adding the "and look forward to practice each day 'friendship', 'chivalry' and 'service'" content. On the talk page, 82 also inappropriately advocated to "paste the settlement agreement" into the article.[10] These edits by 82 and 86 indicate that they do not understand some basic and important guidelines of editing. Hopefully you can advise them and suggest that they discuss any more changes to the Legal section on the talk page first. This way, we can prevent any further disputes on the great content you created. It would be really good if you could read the various comments that were added to the article's talk page over the past couple hours, then add your thoughts. I'm sure that your words would surely be respected as you are a very experienced editor and administrator. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

Hi Qwyrxian. When you have time, can you take a look at Carson Grant as far as puffery and self-authorship? Page is under contention, and I have tried to resolve it on the talk page and at WP:DISPUTE to no avail. The opposing editor vandalized the talk page to conceal the dispute so ERB123 would not be able to resolve it. My sense is the entire page is a candidate for deletion as the subject is not noteworthy and appears to have invented his own biography page. I cannot remove the puffery and self-authored content from the page any further, nor can I add relevant new information to the subject's page, as the opposing editor has threatened to have me banned if I attempt to further. Thanks for any help and for bringing fresh eyes to this page. I may be very wrong, and I am always interested in learning where I am, because that improves me as an aspiring editor.74.73.71.13 (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs improvement, much of which will involve cutting. But there were two problems with your editing. First, you added unsourced negative information about a living person--the legal claim. Such a claim can never appear in Wikipedia without reliable sources; truth be told, we only very rarely include information on pending cases unless they have received widespread coverage, which I doubt this has. But without sources, it cannot be there. Second, the rationale you gave for removing material was incorrect--simply because the author (or their agent) wrote it doesn't mean that the info should automatically be removed. Instead, we have to refer to our policies like WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and, here especially, WP:WEIGHT (which is part of NPOV). To be honest, I don't believe that the page should have be protected, given that there wasn't ongoing problems, but admins are allowed a bit of deference, especially on BLP articles.

I'm going to start editing the article, but I don't have much time to commit to it right now. I'm going to hack out the most egregious section on his history, and then get to the rest of it in a few days. Meanwhile, if you can find sources for the lawsuit, please post them on the article's talk page and we can figure out if they belong. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is awesome. Fair, measured, well-reasoned, and objective. The lawsuit sources should be available online shortly. I'll post them on the talk page as advised, although I understand and agree with the reasons for being cautious about adding it to the finished article until it has received wider coverage. I appreciate your agreeing with me the article definitely needs improvement, and that cutting would help. Qwyrxian, thank you!74.73.71.13 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just seen this thread and suffice it to say, I am furious - It is implied by this IP address that not only have I vandalised this article, I have done so deliberately in order to allow bias material to remain in this article. It is also implied that I made threats against this editor to have them banned. I request this IP show me all relevant diffs, in this thread, to back up the claims against me. I will be taking these implications to WP:AN/I as I believe they warrant a personal attack against me, for the simple fact that I reverted the additions to this article that the IP is clearly involved in at a personal level. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alex, relax, please. Yes, it is correct that the IP should not have used the word "vandalized". The reason I didn't chastise her/him for it was because s/he had been treated unfairly as an IP--my guess is that had a registered editor made the same changes, they would not have been reverted—which is supported by the fact that no one has reverted my removal of the same info. So, yes, it was inappropriate to call you a vandal, and, should that be repeated, it might have repercussions. But people misuse the word vandal all the time; the first step is to explain why the word "vandal" when used in a Wikipedia context is a personal attack, not go off to ANI to file a complaint. So, 74, if you're still watching here, please understand that "vandal" is only used on Wikipedia when someone is intentionally making Wikipedia worse, like saying "I like to eat poop". Content disputes are never vandalism...even POV pushing, when that happens, isn't vandalism. So please don't use that term for other users acting in good faith, which I'm sure AlexJFox is. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've calmed and decided against going to ANI as it's not my intention to bite. However I will clarify here and now that my reverts were never about re-inserting the self-authored piffle that was in the article, I only got involved when the "court case" information was added. If you've checked the diffs from the IP you'll see why I aggressively removed them and issued an biog4-im warning. Thanks for the assistance anyway. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that. I know you meant well, too. I hope that everyone can keep working together now to improve; I don't know when I'll have time to actually gut the page like needs to be done. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)