Jump to content

User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

"Disrespectful"

Here's an editor [1] who feels it is "disrespectful" for other editors to remove extensive lists of completely unreferenced biographical material from articles; however apparently they don't feel the same way about completely ignoring recent postings of rationales for not doing so on the talk page of the same article.:) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Most likely, the user is fully unaware of talk pages and edit summaries. I enhanced your message on the talk page, and left an additional message on the user's talk page; at least that brings up the big orange box when/if they log in under the same username. Hopefully a dialogue will ensue.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Userpage Shield

The Userpage Shield
Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my userpage, even before I got to it! ScottSteiner ✍ 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome...first thing that popped up when I turned on Huggle tonight. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011



This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.


Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

SISPCM

This user is removing sourced contents in the Aryan wiki page. He has already been banned for the same action by an admin some months ago.Rajkris (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to descend into another issue of this type right now. Take a look at dispute resolution to see what options you have. A quick glance, though, makes me think that, as always, you are misusing the word "vandalism." Removing something for "Undue weight" (as SISPCM did) is not vandalism, ever. If you continue to use the word vandalism to describe good faith edits, you will eventually be blocked for violating our policy forbidding personal attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
(butt) Aside from this, Rajkris had already raised it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SISPCM_reported_by_Nmate_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 before posting above. Doesn't look like great wikiquette to me but I can't recall the exact policy right now. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This user has removed sourced contents without any discussion. Isn't that violating wiki rules ?... He has already been blocked for such behaviour.Rajkris (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The editor has only made one edit to the page--how can you be accusing them of repeated vandalism? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
See here [2], it was one of his first edit. He has been blocked for deleting without any discussion (on this matter) but he has removed the blocking notification from his talk page.Rajkris (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. It was a one time event (on the Aryan page). Blocks are preventative--that is, we only block people to stop future disruption to the encyclopedia. We are not supposed to block people as "punishment" for past bad behavior. If xe repeatedly removes the material, there are steps that can be taken. If you think that the person is operating more than one account (because they engage in identical, not similar behavior), then there are things that can be done then, as well. But we don't go back in time several days and say "That thing you did was bad. No Wikipedia for you for 1 day." Regarding his earlier block, I was aware of it, because there are logs you can check. People are allowed to remove almost anything from their user talk page (see WP:BLANKING for details), this includes block notices. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Murph146

  • Thanks for being poliete about the comments and offering to guide me with the myestatemanager page. While i would like to see it have its own page and i do think the website is notable i dont think i'll have the time. My biggest concern was getting the page pdf before one of you deleted. The criteria for thw wikipedia edits assignment stated that we just had to make the edits, they didnt have to stick. My edits to four pages that had aleady been established all stuck so I'm in good shape. I will be in touch for our Media Access Project which i will be uploading my info to by the end of the week. Murph146 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, I think. Please note, however, that intentionally adding information to mainspace that you know doesn't meet standards could be considered a form of disruption. I doubt it would happen, but you could conceivably end up blocked if you were just using Wikipedia for purposes not intended to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know how closely the graders will be looking at your edits, but they might also consider those additions not worthy of full credit, since they didn't actually attempt to meet WP's standards. For example, you couldn't turn in a fictional story to a writing class asking for a non-fiction essay and expect full credit. But, in any event, that's all between you and your prof/TA. Let me know what you need with regards to MAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Your referring just to the page i tried creating on my estate management correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murph146 (talk • contribs)
Be sure to log in to preserve your identity, and also to be sure that you get credit for your edits. The above stuff was just about the estatemanager page. As for Net Neutrality, the 2 paragraphs that are still there need to be rephrased; the third paragraph probably needs to stay out entirely because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with MAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass TV station edits

FYI. This is strange. I'm not quite up to speed, but is this one of several IPs doing this and not responding to talk page communications? If so, is it one person, and should sock tags start to fly?

CC: Qwyrxian, Deconstructhis

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is probably the same guy. Now we have 173.8.57.46, 98.82.234.45, and 98.82.167.40 that geolocate to Jacksonville, Florida, and 98.82.58.151, which geolocates to Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fake User

I have recently found out about this account by my friend. He stated that he created it for me because everyone uses Wikipedia. I understand that this was a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. He provided the wrong information about myself and my other contributions. I apologize for any inconvenience with my account. I would like to place a sandbox of my old band Crazy Generation for one simple reason, to show the truth with them and not all of the false information that my acquittance had provided. Thank you if you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakens88 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you're asking to be allowed to create a page in your sandbox and leave it there indefinitely as information about your old band. If that is correct, then the answer is no. First, why should your friends believe information in your sandbox any more than getting it directly from you personally, since it would still just be the thing you wrote? It's not like it becomes "more true" just because it's in a Wikipedia sandbox as opposed to being said out loud. In any event, though, Wikipedia is not a webhost. You could just as easily go to Blogger (I mean the blogger site, not our article about it) or some other free, open hosting site and put whatever you want there—then you can say whatever you like and not be bound by our rules.
If I've misunderstood your request, please leave another message and I'd be glad to continue trying to help. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Phil protect

Thanks. I was just doing that and saw you had already done it. Cheers to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. Off to bed! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re your talk

Hi there! Can't understand your message on my talk page, please elaborate. You mention "When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary", but I did - "13:49, 26 April 2011 Oops daisy (talk | contribs) (8,847 bytes) (→Commonwealth Games 2010: unrelated to CWG, see talk page) (undo)" You also mention "discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." I did that too! ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suresh_Kalmadi#Allegations Oops daisy (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies--I've struck the warning and explained on your talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Original Research

You recently deleted the information which I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game. I have read your reason for doing so, and I can provide you with the information necessary to re-install my post. You claimed I used original information based on my experience, I can now provide you with sources. One of the most played and famous MMORPGs "World of Warcraft", uses this system of character roles I have explained, as well as many other MMORPGs. Here is a link (by blizzard entertainment) where you can see each class in world of Warcraft has one of the character roles or "archetypes" I was talking about in my post linked to it: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/game/class/. Another popular MMORPG that uses these terms is Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. Here is a youtube video of a person customizing his or her character; in the customization screen, you can see each class has one of the archetypes i specified linked to it like world of warcraft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNGey0gMd2E. You can verify the legitimacy of that video by going on the following site: http://www.warhammeronline.com/index.php, or by playing the game yourself. Many other games also incorporate these archetypes, however to not specify or explain them, they sometimes merely give a description of the archetype without giving it its well known name. One game that does this is Lord of the Rings Online. You can still note that the players in such games still refer to these archetypes by the description i gave, to express what kind of a player they need in their group, etc. Would you please allow me to post my accurate information on the previously established page? Also excuse any grammar mistakes, i am typing in a hurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of typing an answer on your page right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for grabbing that Qwyrxian; I'm going to remove it from my talk page as an error. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: (I will provide verification of my claims later in the paragraph, please read it in its entirety, also, capitalized letters are not intended to be rude, but to emphasis a point.) Your first comment "the youtube link of one person using those terms on one game doesn't help us--that's just one person's usage..." Is not an accurate claim. If you viewd the video, you would know that the video was not that of a person using those terms. The youtube link i specified shows ACTUAL in-game information created by the games developers, and PROVES that that game uses the character system that i explained, more specifically, You can see DEVELOPER crated content around 10 seconds in (class description) showing that each class in the game has one of the archetypes i listed. All players must witness that content to play the game. That information is NOT user created content (you can VERIFY THIS CLAIM by visiting the games OFFICIAL website: http://www.warhammeronline.com/index.php, or by asking a game developer, or by just playing the game. That being said, i have established that 2 of the 3 games i'v mentioned incorporate this character role system. You also claimed that i said ALL MMORPGs use this system, and i said NO such thing. I said MOST MMORPGs use this system. I also explained how some games, even though they don't officially use the archetypes, their classes correspond with them. The example i gave about Lord of the rings was to help explain that fact. Even though some MMOs dont say for example "This class is a Tank", most of the classes in the game still correspond with the archetypes i gave. You can VERIFY THAT CLAIM by viewing the classes on: http://www.lotro.com/hero.php? and comparing them to my listed archetypes. I can't provide you with an infinite list of MMOs that specifically use the archetype system. I was only intending to give you 2 VERIFIED examples. If you wish for me to provide more examples, i can probably do so. However, i can also modify my post to say "SOME -MMORPGS use this system" instead of saying "Most do" which would completely legitimize my post, even if world of Warcraft and Warhammer are the only ones that use this system. Will you please give consideration to me re-posting my information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was a bit unclear myself, as well. First, I strongly appreciate your taking the time to carefully try to explain your points, and I don't read your response above as rude--thanks for that! But, regarding the points, at the moment, the most you could say is "2 MMORPG use a system of character building that divides characters into certain types based on their in game function. These types include..." The problem is, that information shouldn't go into the MMORPG article, it should go into the articles about each individual game (i.e., WoW & Warhammer). The latter part, about LotR (and, by extension, your claim that this is true for "most" or even "some number greater than 2) is what Wikipedia calls original research. I know that this sounds weird, but I recommend you take a look at that link. Basically, we regard any sort of analysis/interpretation to be a form of original research. So, for example, you could not add (to the MMORPG page or the LotR page) the claim "Lord of the Rings Online has character classes that correspond in function to these classes, even though they use different terms." That is your interpretation of what the LotR character classes are. Furthermore, no matter how many examples you give, you still can't make the general claim of "MMORPGs often/usually/regularly use these character types" unless you can produce a secondary source that verifies that they do.
Maybe that's also where I may have confused you, and might help both understand original research and what sources are needed. Wikipedia distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are the "first" basic source. Both of the sources you provided above are primary sources, because they are both from the actual games themselves. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources, but only to state exactly what those sources say. As an example, if you had a list of the temperature every day in City X for one year (which is a primary source), you could say "The temperature in City X is between 10 degrees and 29 degrees". However, you could not say something like "Winters in City X are warm and mild." That second statement is interpretation, and, thus, not allowed. In general, though, we don't use primary sources. Instead, we ask for people to use secondary sources. That includes things like good newspaper articles, reliable magazine (print and online), some television news programs, academic journals, trade publications, books by reliable publishers, etc. That is what you really need to look for here: you need to find a secondary source that discusses what a Tank (etc.) is, and claims that these character classes/functions/types are regularly found across MMORPGs.
I hope that makes this more clear; this is a really weird thing, because it's essentially the opposite of how we teach students to write in school, where we want students to make their own analysis. Here, though, all we can/should do is report what other, reliable people have said. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it correct that all Wikipedia.com articles and edits must be verified with these sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, please read this response in its entirety before jumping to conclusions. I a found several Wikipedia.com articles which state the following: Tanking is a common archetype in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(gaming), that DPS (damage per second) is a common archetypes in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_per_second, that Healing is a common archetype in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healer_(gaming), and Buffing/De-buffing is a common archetype in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_(video_gaming). If each Wikipedia post must be verified in the ways you claim, that means these facts have been verified already for those pages, since they have not been deleted. Therefore i believe you should allow me to continue post my explanation of general MMORPG character roles (archetypes), since the information i state is seen in many separate articles which and have not been deleted; my only intention is to compile a summary of archetypes and place it in the MMORPG page, where it would be most useful for people who want to know about MMORPGs. I expect you will respond with the point that the information i wish to posts already on the wiki pages i'v shown you, thus it does not need to be repeated. And i will protest that with the following: My post is about archetypes and how they relate to MMORPGs in general. The posts i linked are each about a single specific archetype. In addition, it would be better to have my summary of these in the MMORPG page, seeing of how it would benefit anyone who is seeking to gain knowledge about archetypes or MMORPGs, and does not know any of them by name. If you still don't allow me to post my information for the reason of me not being able to verify that MMORPGs use these archetypes, i must protest you delete the articles i'v linked, since ALL OF THEM TOGETHER claim that the EACH archetype i'v stated are OFTEN associated or used in MULTIPLE MMORPGs, and being that me also stating that is the reason for MY post being deleted. I see any further opposition to my posting as blatantly unfair; again i'm not trying to be rude, but i have never had this problem with any other of my posts, some of which i posted without being logged in, and i am beginning to get frustrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs)

First: whenever you write on a talk page, please always finish your post be signing. The easiest way to do that is to add four tildas (~~~~). That will add your name and timestamp of your post. Thanks.
Second, the truth is that there are over 3 million articles on English Wikipedia. A large number of them have significant problems, including violating core policies. So, no, the existence of those other articles doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the information should be in this article.
However, having said all this, maybe other editors are willing to agree to add some/all of this information. I'll start a thread at Talk:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game and see what other editors think. If they concur that this is really a "common knowledge" kind of statement, I'm willing to let it go. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we could come to a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Second time today

Hello Qwyrxian, could please have a look at this anonymous IP edit at KHAS-TV? [3]. As always thank you for your time, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I've added the IP to User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Although, granted they're reverting material without comment or edit summaries, this one appears to me, to simply be a "local" who's objecting to the removal of the unreferenced list. I don't really see a connection between this and the 'localized slogan' campaign. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I left a note in your Black Sandbox (ewwww...), Anna, explaining essentially the same thing as Deconstructhis wrote above. However, if a CU says yes, then I would start to wonder about 1 of 2 things:
  1. The user is deliberately doing this to antagonize myself, Deconstructhis, or Neutralhomer, for some past event, since we're the three who most commonly deal with these problems.
  2. The user in question really is using some sort of source (reliable or not, possibly even personal experience in the industry), and is never going to be dissuaded; perhaps completely unaware of the whole nature and idea of collaboration.
But still, probably different. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Username thing

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reported them to AIV for impersonating another user and then trying to slip in words into the middle of my warning making it look like I was the insulting one. I don't really think there's any more need to assume good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The user is blocked. I guess he didn't know how transparent the project is. Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
But apparently he does know how to hop IPs....And thanks--one good turn deserves another, ne? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. I've been keeping a bit of an eye on recent changes for IPs starting with 60. and and 124.1 Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Taboo of cat, dog and horse meat consumption in the Anglosphere

I think if one wishes to include beef or pork (don't forget chicken) to the See Also quick related issues quick reference in the Dog meat article, it would really not be a bad idea, even though I thoroughly enjoy eating beef, chicken and pork: on a traditional Buddhist and vegan level, even beef, chicken and pork would be considered inhumane. Dog meat is a controversial subject, and the English readers no doubt are exploring the ethics and reason of using such an animal for human consumption, and that study should not end with dog meat, but expanded to the ethics regarding all meat sources, especially cat and horse meat here in the Anglosphere. If the See Also section is to be expanded, let it expand, and use the (multicol-break) to break useful references into separate space-saving columns like this below:

99.130.8.150 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

This is regarding Tamil Kshatriya. I just wrote a referenced elaboration of an already referenced point by someone but the other one refuses and kind of dilly dallies me when i try on a consensus. He seems to an edit warlord from his talk page warnings. Is it that these propagandists are scot free and academicians like me are to be harassed by warnings and bans in wiki?!?!

I never like cat and mouse games in academics.

Konguboy (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, his editing has some problems. That doesn't matter though, because the problem is that your editing also has problems. I've explained this on your talk page, but I'll try again. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. That means that we edit together, as a group. In theory, almost all decisions on Wikipedia about what to include in articles require consensus. So when we disagree about something, we must (not "could" or "might") discuss the issue on the article's talk page. It's not a "cat and mouse" game, it's that Rajkis and myself both have a very serious concern about that information. For example, your addition states, "Denotified Communities in the Mukkulathor corpus Kallars, Maravars and Agamudaiyar are descendents of the great (Kalabhra) invaders from Odra desam and Sallia desam of the north, who are called 'Oddiars' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odisha#Origin_of_the_name_of_the_State as per the Nanjai Idayar copper plate inscriptions" and then cites [4]. The problem is, unless I'm just not seeing it, that page (or the ones after it) don't say anything about Kallars, Maravars, Agamudaiyar, or Oddiars. That means, to me, that you either made a mistake in the reference (like maybe you gave the wrong page), or you've included the wrong reference, or you're intentionally putting in information not backed up by the reference. That is what you need to discuss on the talk page.
Now, just to be clear, though, just fixing that ref doesn't guarantee that the info goes in. There are many things we need to think about and discuss as we consider any possibly contentious addition. Now, if this kind of discussion is what you call a "cat and mouse game", then you will probably not be able to do anything other than the most minor of edits on Wikipedia. In the normal process of editing, people revert, alter, or supplement other people's edits. Disagreements happen regularly. The only way to resolve those disagreements is through conversation. So let's start that conversation now on the article's talk page. Please. Note that once you lay out your explanation and fix the reference, we may well agree to add the info. It may be that we need to keep discussing, or even follow our dispute resolution process to bring in the opinion of other editors. But policy does not allow you to just try to "force" your text into the article...we must discuss, discuss, discuss, until consensus is reached. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
(butting in)) Is this one still rumbling? My work on Paravar is drawing to a close in so far as finding additional material to add, although I am sure there is more out there somewhere. If there are issues on the TK article then should I don my flameproof suit once more? ... The concept of there not being disputes between academics would be a new one for me: disputes, and the politics of those, are their speciality. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It's up to you. At the moment, as I said above, the information cannot go in, because it doesn't match the sources. I have additional worries about the source (I'm not sure it's an RS), and it seems to, yet again, be based upon historical legend, not archeological evidence. The latter, of course, can be overcome so long as we very clearly state that that is the source for the info and we have a secondary RS critically commenting on the original, but I don't know if we have that. To be honest, though, I don't even know if any of that has to do with the page at hand; it surely uses a totally different set of terminology; that means that there may be OR going on (Source X says "Group A did such and such, and everyone knows Group A is also called Group B, so we can say Group B did such and such"). Basically, my stance at the moment is that I'm not willing to put any effort into trying to do the research myself until Konguboy first agrees to start a discussion on the talk page. That is, the burden is on xem to begin explaining the relevance of the source and info, not on others to produce counter-sources or try to dig through fragments of a book on Google Books without any direction at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yours seems to be a sound strategy. Collaboration is everything here and the sooner people realise that, the better. I'd rather people agreed to differ on a talk page than edit war - at least some form of consensus would emerge. Extrapolation of "fact" is a definite non-starter as it is original research. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
fyi, Konguboy has been blocked indefinitely.Rajkris (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw. given the long history of socking, it's highly unlikely he won't try again at some point in the future. Nonetheless, another editor (User:Car Tick), who is a good faith editor with a long history in this field, seems to have concerns with the article; be sure, as always, that you discuss issues, not just revert the article to your preferred version. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks

for striking the comment. would you mind doing it in my talk page as well. just for the record. thanks. --CarTick (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't check to see if it was still on your talk page--I'll do that now. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Will rephrase my post. Point taken. --Psychoscientist (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

user talk:Bishonen

You need to leave my post to Bish alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but why does this edit qualify as vandalism? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
it's not ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...maybe I took it wrong; in part, it was due to the edit summaries in the responses, and the phrasing of the message itself; I think I also got the user mixed up with another IP vandal I was reverted via Huggle, and thought it was part of a different set of disruption. When I look at 125.'s edit history, I see a number of different bad faith comments...but I think I was reading more into it than I should have. I will apologize on IP's talk page (already blanked, so no warnings to strike). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
don't bother, stay off my talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Too late, I left my message there before I saw this one. Again, apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Confirming that messages from 125.162.150.88 are welcome on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
An IP user who blanks their talk page frequently - it is just asking for mistakes to be made by other users, I feel. - Sitush (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. "Or 'zilla will flame you" is not a legal threat. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
Note that I never warned the IP for legal threats, or implied that xe was making them. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move?

User Qwyrxian, do we have an agreement here to move the page from List of scandals in India by state to List of alleged scams in India? GaneshBhakt (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, definitely not. This article has been moved several times already, and we need to decide firmly on a title before moving it again. I think we may actually be running into a problem due to differences between varieties of English. I've asked the primary page editor to provide some input, so I'd like to at least give xem a day or two to respond; if no response comes there, I think we need to request a third opinion or list this with {{movienotice}} and try looking around (maybe WikiProject India) for more input. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Wikiproject page

I noticed it was a mistake right after I reverted. The warning is already gone from the talk page, but I'll also leave an apology to the professor. – Zntrip 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Question from Aitwl

How can i add pictures to pages?Aitwl (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a variety of ways once you're a confirmed user (this will happen for you automatically in a few days). Until then, please go to WP:Files for upload, and follow the directions there. Please note that since this is a living person article (I'm assuming this is for Peter Swirski), the picture will need to be "free"--that is, in the public domain or CC-BY-SA licensed. So, you can't use any pictures you pull from most websites, from a book jacket cover, etc.
Also, I still need you to revert your last two edits, as they are in direct violation of WP:EL. I will do it for you eventually, but would rather you acknowledged and understood why those can't be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

POV title tag

I understand your concern, but I wish the general public to know that there's a dispute on the title (they don't usually read the talk page). STSC (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please give some thought to my comments here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bothell High School

You deleted all the references that the Bothell High School Alumni Association asked me to add, including some that referenced a mirror site and some that DIDN'T. The reference to Smith in "Notable Alumni" referenced a Seattle news site, not the site you alleged was a mirror, yet you deleted it anyway. LEAVE IT UP, and BUTT OUT. That is not in violation of rules. You ARE being a dick. (Smithe26 (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

Blanking of talk page

Hi, As you have said that i have been blanking my talk page. I don't know how to archive them. I blank them when the contents grow too much. Will they be archived automatically ? what the other ways to clearing the talk page without blanking. Thanks (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).

If you want to set up autoarchiving, take a look at [HowTo#Example 2- incremental archives]. If you copy and paste the stuff in the blue box there, and change "User talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d" to say "User talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Archive %(counter)d", then that will set it up to archive automatically. You can choose how many days you want items to remain on your talk page; the basic set up is for 31 days. I have mine set at 12 days, but my talk page is very active. It's up to you how big you want your page to get.
However, it's not really the blanking that is a problem, as much as it is the fact that you almost never respond to what other people write. Myself and others tried to raise very serious concerns with you well before the other editor raised your editing behaviors on WP:ANI; perhaps if we'd had some good conversations we could have avoided that "harsher" route. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Crosstemplejay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please help assess articles for Public Policy Initiative research

Hi Qwyrxian/Archive 10,

Your work as an Online Ambassador is making a big contribution to Wikipedia. Right now, we're trying to measure just how much student work improves the quality of Wikipedia. If you'd like contribute to this research and get a firsthand look at the quality improvement that is happening through the project, please sign up to assess articles. Assessment is happening now, just use the quantitative metric and start assessing! Your help would be hugely appreciated!

Thank you, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi, How to find the list of pages created by someone from the date he joined Wikipedia ? Thanks.

(Mahesh Yadav (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)).

Within WP itself, I think you can only get the most recent month, which you can see by looking at Special:NewPages and entering the person's username in the appropriate field.
However, on the toolserver, there are all sorts of tools you can use. Specifically, you can go [5], and enter a person's username, and get a full list of all articles ever created by a person (although, I assume it doesn't show deleted articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Qwyrxian/Archive 10, I went through the article about Judicial reforms in India again and realized what you were talking about. Sorry I did not catch that early. On second thought I will change my decision to Delete since much of the statements do not even have sources. Thanks for the time spent trying to get me to see the point about the need for deletion. Hope to work more with you on other stuff on WP. Have a nice day.-- CrossTempleJay  talk 08:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking a second look. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok i will not move aticles for afd

it was done to save the article with a better name. Will take care in future. Thanks.  Mahesh Kumar Yadav  talk 11:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

To save the article, you'd need completely re-write it about judicial reforms that have already existed. Wikipedia cannot and will not ever host an article about "judicial reforms being demanded in country X". That's nothing other than an advocacy piece for one specific point of view. Apologies, because I don't want to strictly be discouraging, but if you cannot see why an article advocating for one side of a particular political issue is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then I'm not sure how you can work here productively. Such information might possibly belong, in a few, well chosen details, in some other article. But we don't write articles like "People's support for candidate X" or "Arguments in favor of position Y." Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

Even the government of the People's Republic of China are calling the border facilities as between (Mainland) China and Hong Kong (or Macau) in its own material published online and in state-sponsered newspapers and other media outlets. SchmuckyTheCat is taking a hardline Chinese communist approach to be ultra-nationalistic. To sum up, he's trying all his effort to stress that China is in control. He has been in trouble for long with airline destination lists. 218.250.143.151 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at the user page, and the link to the timeline of events, and see the similarity. If the IP isn't blocked, I'll keep reverting what I see on Huggle (although I may not be on much longer). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Do you understand what SchmuckyTheCat has been doing? 218.250.143.151 (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you are a banned user. This means that your edits are not allowed--whether or not they are correct. By definition, banned users may not edit under any circumstances, and their edits may be reverted on sight. If you want to be unbanned, please follow one of the methods listed at WP:UNBAN. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting IP edits on my talk page

Yeah, title says it all really heh, thanks very much for reverting user 99.191.118.124 on my talk page. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pkk Militant Terror Group

to be objective we should state that pkk is terrorist group, as in the al-Qaeda page Ermancetin (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to discuss it on the article talk page, because not all sources state that they are. All we can do is report what reliable sources say. Again, the article does say that some governments consider them a terrorist organization. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

But the goverments know nothing about the terrorism in Turkey, or they dont want to consider, ok i am opening a talk in the article page... Ermancetin (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Qwyrxian, Thanks for the link, Not to offend but when i checked it for you to check the number of fresh articles you have created, it show only 'one' http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Xionbox&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects If its true, i want to ask how can a person who have not created a good number of articles, can understand the pain of an article being deleted. Why should one delete content, without feeling the pain of creating it.  Mahesh Kumar Yadav  talk 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if that's why you wanted to know. The answer is multifold. One, I have created a lot of content on Wikipedia--I just do it in existing articles rather than in new articles. And I have had my contributions changed, altered, and, even, deleted (I can think of times where I spent many hours rewriting, re-organizing, and re-searching sources, only to have my contributions wholly rejected or removed by consensus). Second, I don't have access to an English library, so I can't easily conduct the research materials necessary to verify most topics. More importantly, though, it's that I actually enjoy being an "editor" in the normal sense of the word. That is, an "editor" (in the real world) is a person who works at a publishing company, who takes the writings of others and corrects, alters, improves, and, sometimes, even deletes/rejects them entirely. No high quality work can exist without both "writers" and "editors".
Ultimately, though, the problem is that you're approaching the issue from the wrong perspective. Why is the "pain" you went to in creating these articles a relevant issue? For example, what if an editor wrote an article explaining all about how Indian people are stupid, old-fashioned, greedy, and smelly (none of which I believe at all--I'm trying to prove a point). Could that person defend their article by saying that they had worked very long and hard to write it? Of course not. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That does not mean that it is the "encyclopedia where anyone can write anything they want to and have it automatically become a permanent part of the site". The fact is, we have many different rules about what types of content we should have, how to organize it, and how to format it. Your contributed articles and content have regularly and consistently violated those rules. You're trying to push a point of view, you're adding copyrighted text to Wikipedia in ways that is not only against policy but actually illegal, and you're fragmenting topics into micro-articles that aren't sufficient to stand on their own.
I would rather not have to recommend your articles for deletion (note, by the way, that I've only done that with one or two of your articles so far, and one template, if I remember correctly). I would rather that you work with me and others to learn how to create acceptable content/articles. For almost everything that you've been writing, it certainly looks like you need to be doing that within existing articles, not creating new ones. It means that you need to learn how to write neutrally. It means that you have to immediately stop copying over information from other websites directly without rewriting and summarizing them. Do you want to learn how to write and edit the Wikipedia way? If you do, I will help (as will many others). If you don't, then I and others will continue to recommend your articles for deletion, remove your unacceptable content, you'll get more frustrated, and you might even eventually be blocked. Truthfully, at this point, it's up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply. I respect you and your way of contributing. Also i didn't asked for the tool to check the list of articles specifically for you. :-) I checked 10s of others admins and contributors, but many of them have more than 50 or 100 articles that they have started and those articles are presently surviving on Wikipedia. I fully agree with all the things and reasons you have said and i understand them pertaining the quality of content. I want you to put your foot in my shoe. Try to create 10 articles (at present times) that you think are needed and are important. Feel the problems to survive the article. Experience how much time it takes. A seed can't grow till it is separate from its mother tree. Most of the times, when a separate new small article is created with the motive of growing it, it is merged by someone into the parent article. There it fails to grow because the content can't expand there beyond particular limits. In this way it makes difficult for Wikipedia to expand. The baby articles if have potential to grow, they must be nurtured, corrected, improved and instead of merging into the parent article, if the parent article is big itself.Also a person from that region or country sometimes better understands the importance of particular articles, but admins from other locations underestimate its value. Just sharing my views, nothing against you or anybody. Thanks.  Mahesh Kumar Yadav  talk 06:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Michio Kaku

This edit, which you labeled "vandalism", was not. I believe it was a genuine good-faith attempt to add information, (He added true information; Introduction in Physics of the Impossible verifies that) even though he didn't cite a source.

Remember to assume good faith, keep a generic edit summary whenever possible, and be paranoid that someone (like me) is going to dig out a revert revision with a bad edit summary and tell you on your talk page.

On an entirely related note, I'm not watching this page, so DO NOT leave a {{tb}} on my talk page. Fragment the discussion there or leave a {{wb}} instead. --43?9enter ★☭ 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and please reply

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Captain Screebo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I assume you're watching my talk page, in case you're not, I have replied to you. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Updated, with thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. He is a rather energetic new user isn't he! I think we need to keep from discouraging him though, this kind of energy we need to keep around the community. Would you mind continuing to help me advocate/work with him? Sadads (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Some queries

hi, would you like to write you view on some of the questions asked here. User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Who_will_bring_Indian_villages_to_wikipedia Thanks, (Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)).

Is deltion of somebody's talk subpage allowed

User talk:PMDrive1061 deleted my talk subpage User talk:Maheshkumaryadav/List of schools in districts of India. The page was not having any offensive contents, but was edited to perfection by me for three hours. The deletion of contents from 'main' domain can be understandable, but is deleting my subpage which i was planning to use fair. Has he violated any rules. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That does look strange:I can't think of why PMDrive1061 would have done that. The reason given certainly doesn't make sense. Generally your sandbox should be a subpage of your userpage (i.e., it should have been User:Maheshkumaryadav/List of schools in districts in India), but I don't think that would justify deletion. My guess is that it was a mistake based on that naming. The best course now is to wait until xe responds (xe's most likely not online now)--if it was a mistake, xe can restore it very easily. If there was some other specific reason, then you can discuss it then. There's a way to "review" the deletion with other uninvolved admins, but it's usually best to go with the original deleting admin first. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The original issue was a CSD of a similarly titled article in mainspace, promulgated by someone who has not been involved with Mahesh to the best of my knowledge. PMDrive1061 deleted that per the CSD request and then deleted the userspace page as there was a dependency (CSD G8). I agree that it was an unusual step but reverting the userspace page deletion should not be a problem. I never even saw the mainspace page but the effect of deletion was that umpteen other redlinked lists that Mahesh had created became even more broken than they already were. It wouldn't surprise me if there was an element of people running out of patience - some others who were involved have certainly expressed that sentiment subsequently.
To be honest, given that Mahesh had not sought the advised consensus prior to embarking on a multitude of edits in mainspace (and the userspace page was a minor element in that scheme), I wouldn't be too fussed about it. I regret to say that I have felt pretty uncomfortable about a lot of recent events regarding Mahesh but still believe that his inability or unwillingness to really listen to the several other editors made a bad situation much worse. He announced a wikibreak almost straight after reporting me at AN/I. I do hope that it is not permanent but he does need to learn a bit about collaboration.
I'm afraid that I have spent much of my Wiki time today running round in circles regarding Mahesh-based issues, This means that I have not progressed the Tamil Kshatriya sources review which I was intending to do. Normal service tomorrow, hopefully. - Sitush (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Anna's message on his talk page about what to do after returning is a good one, matching up with your comments about collaboration here. Regarding your work, I think this message often gets lost. When a user insists on a go-it-alone, gung-ho approach, especially when they engage in rapid actions, the efforts of other editors get diverted into being certain that the changes are happening appropriately and often fixing them. Like in the case of the school splits, not only was it necessary for him to get consensus prior to splitting, but the initial splits without attribution break the license and start throwing up all sorts of copyright flags.
In a certain sense, Mahesh is right, in that we are "missing" a very large number of articles that we "should" have, not just on Indian villages, but on all sorts of topics about India and other under-served countries. And, in a certain sense, it's not "fair"--back when en.wiki started, it was okay to start all sorts of articles in any sad state, with the idea that they would eventually be improved. India (et al) now come in when the 'pedia is at a different stage--when articles now have to enter mainspace at a certain minimum level. The problem is, that Mahesh's "solution" (essentially, arguing that correcting systemic bias trumps other concerns) isn't broadly accepted by the community.
I foresee us having more and more problems like this, as natives of countries like India become more involved editing. As we've discussed before, knowledge is constructed in different ways in different countries and at different times, and Wikipedia's definition of knowledge isn't actually compatible with other types. This is the same "problem" faced by teachers (like myself) of non-native English speakers who have been raised with fundamentally different ideas about collaboration, plagiarism, knowledge, problem-solving, education, etc., etc.
Can Mahesh be a productive member of the community? It seems plausible, but I'm not sure. The question I was pondering this morning is--is xe learning from xyr mistakes? That is, when xe stopped the POV pushing regarding corruption topics, is that because xe understood NPOV, or because xe simply felt xyrself blocked in that area, so xe turned to a new area, wherein xe encountered new problems?
Anyway...enough waxing philosophical..it's already 10 am and I've hardly touched my watchlist...time to get back to our regularly scheduled program... Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I had no dealings with Anna prior to the Mahesh situation. Throughout the 24 hours or so she demonstrated a very measured judgement and a clarity of writing that really impressed me. You and her have very similar styles and I do wonder if you are both pro writers! - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Anna's awesome. I think the first time we worked together was dealing with a Korean POV pusher on Dog meat. Besides being extremely calm in a dispute, she makes a ton of new articles--not just stubs, but full fledged articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for the kind words. But, I really didn't commit the amount of energy that you two did. You've really handled this matter well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fire-fighting

If you have the time even to review a couple of items on Anna's list at User:Anna_Frodesiak/Silver_sandbox then I think it would be appreciated. We all have better things to do than this, but it must be done. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My primary work computer is down, and I'm focused on fixing it right now. I may have time in a few days (or sooner, if I can fix that computer). Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty lucky for Friday the 13th. Consider it a blessing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Confession

Hi Qwyrxian,

I would like to apologise, because some time back when you were helping me i questioned your intentions. But later i have experienced your behavior is neutral and you try to look things judiciously. I was new to this part of Wikipedia, the talk pages, though i had been using Wikipedia for long time. The bigger problem seem to be the way, i am interacting on talk pages, then the kind of edits. Earlier when i was less active, there were no problems, but few days back when i got some time and tried to become active with contributions, problems started. I created stubs for villages in Haryana, India. It was my fault that they were unreferenced. I tried to improve and made some better police stubs, with official references. Later when i was creating Punjab villages stubs with references from govt site, i got my self blocked. The concern for others was the quantity of articles i was creating though at that time the quality was sufficient. Later my block was removed with a community ban to create new articles. All my contributions for last 5 years were scrutinized and problems from them were ratified. And it was tiresome work for some other experienced users. They got more annoyed with me. I feel i need to learn a lot how things work here. Now i think it would be better if i become less active, improve quality of articles created by me when time permits, avoid mass stub creation. I would like to thank you for the guidance. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the quality was not sufficient and you were told of this. The police articles, for example, were much more of a mess than you would admit to until I forced the issue, at which point it became obvious that something like 90% of the information you had entered was incorrect. You really are still not getting it. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, can you either point me to an example or the discussion regarding the police articles showing that they were wrong, or at least explain to me what was wrong about them?
Mahesh, I am also concerned that your message here may come too late, but I haven't given up all hope yet. At the moment, the best thing you can do is wait and respond to any direct questions that people ask either on ANI or on your talk page. I'm still trying to gather more clarification after my short absence. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, the police articles discussion is, like many others regarding Maheshkumaryadav, rather scattered. The bit that demonstrates the issue I refer to starts at User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Archive_1#Explain_abbreviation and runs on into the section following. There was stuff before that, and there is stuff after it also, but for the purposes of demonstrating my comment above about the articles not being "sufficient", I think that this area is the relevant bit. For the record, I was slightly surprised when PMDrive1061 hit the nuke button and the Punjab village articles went, as it was my opinion that these did at least have a reference. He subsequently nuked the other village stubs (472 of them, less the three that had been PRODed) & this was IMO the right move. As far as the Punjab stuff goes, well, I must admit to not being sad to see them go - for reasons that have been elucidated by Anna in her response to you on her talk page - but if you want me to seriously put myself on the line then I suppose that they were at the minimum of acceptable standard even if created is a very misconceived manner. You will be aware, also, that there is a real issue of trust regarding Indian government website articles, which were the source for this. Good faith says that you have to accept a country's government as being correct ... but we all know that often they are not and in cases such as this they are in fact unbelievably unreliable. No offence to anyone from India, but for a country that produces such fantastic contributors to the IT industry it continues to surprise me just how incredibly poor their official government websites are, both in design and in content.
Back to the police articles. What happened was that Mahesh was firefighting some concerns that had arisen before my involvement. He created one article on a police force, on which PMDrive and others complimented him as part of the process of trying to ameliorate "damage" and encourage good habits. Unfortunately, Mahesh then cloned that article for a further 20 police forces, changing little more than the reference and the police force name. This process inevitably produced all sorts of discrepancies, which is where I stepped in with my queries as noted in the sections linked to above. The end result, since Mahesh seemed not to be interested in fixing the issues himself, was that I cut them back. The infoboxes themselves were actually removed by me after Mahesh announced that he was taking a wikibreak (it is documented in his TP archive): since it seemed that he was going to be at least temporarily no longer around, there seemed little option other than to remove dodgy content. It could always be added back.
As you are aware, there is another Indian article on which I really need to spend some time. That has gone on the backburner as a consequence of recent events. I made the decision to prioritise and therefore it is my "fault". However, if Mahesh had actually taken on board, at umpteen different stages, the view of the community then this farrago could have been long done and dusted. In particular, the latest series of issues is because he keeps moving the goalposts: promising to abide by X, and then straight away running off on some renegade mission. I do not understand this and it is the prime cause, I feel, of most of the bad faith that now exists towards him. It is all extremely unfortunate, but I have to be honest and say that I simply cannot trust him to be collaborative any more. And that is something which I cannot recall ever saying previously.
Here endeth the essay. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I definitely don't want you to put anything on the line for a group of stubs. I may be willing to do so myself, but I'm still working on it. I've asked for PMDrive's comments, which is the key first step. Thank you for the input on the police articles. I recalled the discussion, but not the details. That is, definitely, a problem. However, my main concern here is that if Mahesh is learning, albeit extremely slowly, then it seems odd to jump to a ban. If this can be solved in some other way, it seems like it should be. This is something I'm risking entirely on my own, and I don't mind if you and Anna think I'm nuts or oppose any such suggestion. Also, I'm trying to work through the Silver Sandbox; anything I don't comment on seems fine to me, but I am recommending slightly different courses on a few articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I respect your judgement, always have. I am also grateful for any comments which you may make. In particular, input on the sandbox stuff is invaluable. It was publicised, several times, but the workload has fallen mostly on two people and further input is always beneficial. A "consensus" of 2 is not great. And, for the record, I don't think that there are many people whom I would think are nuts, although some may appear to me to be contrary. You are neither. This is a complete mess and anything, anything at all, that might persuade me to reconsider is much welcomed. I am not a fan of disputes and have rarely participated in AN/I discussions. I remain open to thoughts/suggestions/opinions but would point out that there are numerous other people involved who have not expressed an opinion at AN/I but have done so elsewhere, eg: User:Elen of the Roads. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the more recent examples of what Anna has called incorrigibility is M's statement here that the article creation ban was because of his Punjab stubs. He has got the timing all wrong: the ban was imposed subsequent to those but the consensus was already, by a wide margin, in place and he had been urged to desist from creating those articles until matters were resolved. Given past tendencies, I really do not think that this was an issue of miscommunication: Mahesh has demonstrated that he is more than capable of utilising the English language. There are many other examples of what, for want of a better word, I will call "duplicity", ie: presenting evidence in a way which distorts the truth and which appears possibly to be done deliberately with that intent. Good faith only stretches so far. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to iterfere but may I ask has the wikipedia community concluded that websites of Indian governments are not reliable sources.If it is so we may need to visit many pages and find alternative sources. I created two stubs this weekend with references taken from Indian government websites. I would be interested to know so that these stubs do not land on chopping board.Shyamsunder (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a detailed critique of them. I did not say that Wikipedia has concluded that they are unreliable, but there appear to be plenty of editors who have come to the conclusion that care is required. Broken links galore, contradictory information and use of copyrighted materials without acknowledgement are just three common issues. They are sometimes quite difficult to use (eg: a large number of them were blocked to non-Indian users recently, until I contacted the relevant state govt/NIC and pointed out the issue). Of course, as government productions they will always be reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense, even though individual judgements may be applied. There was an issue with one of Maheshkumaryadav's uses, which I think he later agreed was an issue, and as another example there has been a recent problem at Paravar (an article which I practically rewrote) where a Bihar govt site put the same caste in two different parts of the OBC schedules, on different pages and without date(s). They have to be treated with care, in my experience, but cannot be ignored. Hope this clarifies. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_10&oldid=1141430842"