This is an archive of past discussions about User:Qwyrxian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Islam in India. Message added 16:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I saw that you have removed an External link in Sri Lankan Tamil people wiki page,mentioning that "phd theses are not generally valid links or RS" - If you dont mind could you please direct me to the page where it is mentioned so,Books are Books you cant categorize them and ignore like this,Dravidian Settlements in Ceylon and the Beginnings of the Kingdom of Jaffna by now professor Karthigesu Indrapalan is well recognized book written after doing a whole lot of research with much effort.How can you simply Ignore such a piece.MediaJettalk17:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It was on that basis that I used a PhD thesis for James Tod. Whether the thesis the OP refers to has any relevance etc is another matter but the policy in respect of reliability is clear. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I've self reverted on the article. The policy is ridiculous: in my experience, PhD thesis are only cited in cases where 1) the author has published significant later work, usually on the same topic, that has been recognized as major scholarship or 2) the person is self-citing (or citing from within a research group that is promoting itself), or 3) there really is absolutely no other reference and it's being used as a reference of last resort. However, I don't want to argue about it or try to refute the policy, and I realize that it's possible that my field of academia is different, and that PhD theses are accepted in other fields when they're not in mine. Thanks for pointing out the policy, as I certainly don't want to break them even when I disagree with them. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I looked-up the policy a few days ago, because I found a master-thesis on ramana Maharshi ("Ramana Maharshi and the Colonial Encounter") which is really good, and challenges the Neo-Vedanta framing of his person and teachings. Unfortunately, it's a master-thesis, so it can't be referenced. Got to wait for the author to have a "real" publication on it... Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree, Q, and was surprised to find the policy when I was working on Tod. My own rationale was that, well, the PhD was written by the same person and on the same subject as the only major biographer of Tod, Jason Freitag. I think it is the only time that I've found a use for such a thesis in an article and the policy has rankled with me when I've seen less "connected" examples in use. I guess that the logic is that it is academically peer-reviewed and many PhD theses nowadays do end up being published. On the other hand, if someone says something in the thesis and then omits it from the book, one has to question why it was omitted. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
He's back from his block, but the first edits he made were just copies and pastes on the Choy sum article. I told him to stop editing and get a mentor before he ends up getting himself permanently blocked, but I think a message from an admin (such as yourself) would be helpful as well. It's pretty clear that he still does not understand the policies and guidelines. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
She stated that she was born in Bulgaria. She does not state that she was or is a Bulgarian citizen. Sorry. WP:BLP is really really strict on this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This is absolutely not true!!Lopez asked her:"Are you bulgarian?" and Nina replied "Yeah, I am bulgarian!".If she was only canadian she would reply "No, I am canadian but I was born there." but she didn't said that!!The true is that you don't want to write bulgarian in the article.Besides I asked you to give me reliable source about her having only canadian nationality and you avoided my request.This is not neutral point of view!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
This is reference N:7 from the wikipage of Nina Dobrev:"^ Finke, Nikki (2011-04-15). "Nina Dobrev Goes From 'Vampire Diaries' To 'The Perks Of Being A Wallflower'". Deadline.com. Retrieved 2011-04-17."This is the link: http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/123303/ In this article it is written again: "Bulgarian-Canadian actress" --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact is that respectable news agency like Sofia News Agency is refering to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian and even one of the references from her article NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief from deadline.com is also refering to her as Bulgarian-Canadian!! If NIKKI FINKE is good enough to be used by other editors in BLP I don't see a logical reason why he is not good enough to be used by me as a reference!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to look at this right now; maybe in a few days. One question to be careful of is whether they mean "Bulgarian-Candian" to mean "Canadian of Bulgarian descent/ethnicity" or whether they mean "Dual Canadian Bulgarian citizen". BLP says we have to be sure it means both. I recommend either continuing discussion on the article's talk page, or opening up a new thread at the BLP noticeboard; that should get responses faster. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh...well, I'll check the sources later. Feel free to continue discussion on the article's talk page without me, as I don't know when I'll have time to get to this. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Q, This user is removing sourced materials and adding some other information which are not sourced and not written in a proper way in this article. I have warned and also reverted those but he is just adding the same information over and over again. Could you look through those and take actions if necessary? Tolly4bolly07:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI
FYI, as you apparently watch (or stalk) his talk page, I intend to request a block for User:Vjmlhds the first chance I get. I didn't want you to think that I'm going to let this back-and-forth between he and I continue on any longer w/o additional outside input and/or action. Levdr1lostpassword / talk18:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts over at the noticeboard. I thought I had completely misinterpreted your advice on Vjmlhds' talk page. Thank you. Levdr1lostpassword / talk15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
ANI
I think you're a great admin and am an admirer of your work here. But I think you've got this one wrong. I just don't think it's disruption to add unreferenced material to Wikipedia. I also don't agree that policy supports the blind reverting of unsourced uncontentious material. If there's other disruption going on that I've not picked up on, then I apologise wholeheartedly and will happily wield the blockbutton myself. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Everything I believe in about Wikipedia tells me that you're wrong. For me, yes, adding unsourced material to Wikipedia is a problem--it's a violation of WP:OR/WP:V. I don't know why that pillar would be of any less importance than anything else. I've blocked plenty of users for first 1) adding unsourced info, 2) being told about it, 3) continuing #1, 4) repeated warnings, 5) refusal to follow warnings or simple ignorance of them. I don't understand what else we can do with an editor who believes that anything he adds is okay, because he "knows" its true, but others have to find sourcing (especially if what they add doesn't match what he "knows"). We block to stop disruption. Adding unsourced information, particularly information for which there is any reason to believe it might be wrong (and Vjmhlds adds info, as I said, based upon what he "knows") is directly harmful to the encyclopdia, and we block to stop harm. But you're a smart, good-working editor admin. So where is my error here? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
To know about WP Admins
I saw you have removed religion parameter from Rajiv Gandhi Page. Good. Actually we had a discussion in fb group regarding the matter, Someone yesterday changed his religion to Muslim and posted its screen shot in one of the facebook group. After that, there were constant updation of the religion parameter to Christian, Hindu etc... People in that facebook group even questioned about the authenticity of the WP.I tried to remove that parameter. I couldn't. I thought of contacting the admins. But i was not able to do so. How can I contact Admins in WP ?. What should I do in such a situation? Can I be a Admin? Please help. Advance Thanks and Regards
--Jethro76 (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Contrary to your advice to Shabiha (talk·contribs) in lieu of RfC, Shabiha (talk·contribs) helped Baboon43 (talk·contribs) upon his request to push the Baboon43 (talk·contribs)'s POV / Personal Analysis (which he has been trying hard for through edit-warring and through accusing me for not having discussions with him despite I have had very long and extensive discussions with him and that's precisely why I opened the RfC) into Al-Ahbash article without participating in long and extensive discussion nor in the RfC. Given Shabiha (talk·contribs)'s own edit history, it becomes apparent that he is not neutral nor impartial (which the Al-Ahbash article desperately need) when it comes to Sufi or Braelvi or Wahabi related articles. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a dream, that one day you will be able to log in without fear that you'll need to deal with this article or the involved editors. And in that dream, you can simply log in and deal with other annoyances instead. Which will never end. Ever. But hopefully this one will soon. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Problem
Hello Qwyrxian. You said here that I should contact you if there's a problem with Vjmlhds. Earlier today he made changes to three radio station articles – WKNR, WKRK-FM, and WNCX – all relating to their upcoming partnerships with the Cleveland Browns. All three stations have made it clear that they will begin a new local radio partnership (play-by-play coverage, etc.) with the team on May 1st. All three stations are constantly telling listeners on-air, and via their websites, that each will be the "New Radio Home of the Cleveland Browns... starting May 1st!", or some variation of that line. All three articles reflected that information, verified by reliable sources... or at least they did until Vjmlhds made his changes.[1][2][3] Those edits, each station's edit history, as well as this discussion on my talk page, demonstrate that Vjmlhds was (and is now) fully aware of the correct date this partnership goes into effect. Yet he changed the information to read as though it is an existing partnership (changes to infoboxes, navbox additions, new text, etc.), *and* he removed any sources verifying the May 1st date. I don't see why his edits were necessary, or how they would do anything other than potentially confuse readers. The May 1st date was clearly noted (and properly sourced) in the leads of all three articles before his changes. Levdr1lostpassword / talk02:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Correction: apparently he only removed the May 1st refs from the WKNR article. I will give Vjmlhds the benefit of the doubt here and assume it was done in error. Levdr1lostpassword / talk03:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah...I would rather err on the side of caution. I am following up with Dweller regarding the conversation he started here and on your talk page. It is possible that I'm somehow entirely out of line with other editors, so I'm trying to get input as to where I might be wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
it is not against wikipedia guidelines, we cannot include just names in some situations, categories can be included in the bottom or in the relevant areas. Further, we are not linking categories, it is just that we are adding further info. Murrallli (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
A category doesn't provide further info--it just provides a list of names. We would not add a category to a "further" template. As for adding to the bottom, you may only add a category to an article if that article itself fits in that category. The topic of "cinema of Andhra Pradesh" is not a part of the category "Music of Andhra Pradesh". So, no, the category does not belong either in a "further" template or at the bottom of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
moved categories to bottom, thanx, but still dont rub ur personal opinions on other editors
It looks that even I have reverted 3 times in the article. My humble apologies....I had to revert them as they were surely unnecessary and disrupting. Sincerely, TheStrikeΣagle14:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
3 reverts is technically okay, though admins can block for any amount of reverting (in special cases, even a single revert) as more general edit warring. At this point, if Muralli makes another revert, don't revert again yourself--I'll just file a 3RR report and s/he'll certainly be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This is probably the first time I made a 3RR vio after my first 2 edits about 2 years ago. BTW you are an admin aren't you? ..of course, in this case, you are involved. Cheers, TheStrikeΣagle14:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am, and yes, I'm WP:INVOLVED. And filing a 3RR report is a bunch of work that I'd rather not do...though I can't allow the disruption to continue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
In relevant sections, further info can be added, but I cant help with
your deliberate vandalism, you vandalize and do edit warring, and victimize innocent editors like me no issues, I am used to getting abused by editors like u Murrallli (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism is when someone writes "AP movies are like totally stupid, you know? LOLOLOLOL." Disagreements about what content should be in an article are never vandalism, and if you call them that, you're going to be blocked. Look, all you need to do now is go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. Okay? I've already proposed one compromise. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
good to see thatu have added it, in see also, instead of vandalizing
If i do the same argument with other editors, about content disagreement is not vandalism other abusive editors through their agenda driven vandalism can abuse me and tag me as Point of View, at that time dominating editors like u will not come to rescue, things which are not vandalism Murrallli (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
If another editor calls your edits vandalism, and they were not, please warn them, and, if they persist, raise the matter with an administrator. You can even ask me, if you want; or, you can open a discussion at WP:ANI, which is the fastest way to get the input of administrators. And, again, there is, by definition, no such thing as "agenda driven vandalism". WP:VANDAL explicitly and directly says that POV editing is not vandalism. It's still wrong, but it's not vandalism. We have ways of handling POV editing, edit warring, and other problems. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to do so.
Finally, when you want to talk with people on their user talk pages, don't start a new thread for every comment. Just reply in the same thread, below the last comment, adding one more colon (:) before your paragraphs to indent them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Category for deletion needs closing
I started an CFD for Category:Male film directors on 22 March 2013. link. It is still open though I believe there is a clear consensus. The new CFD by Timrollpickering is one of many that he has begun that applies to all currently existing men/women male/female categories. His new CFD does not conflict with my original CFD. Thank you. - Fantr (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Apologies, but I don't handle CfD discussions ever--I'm simply not knowledgeable enough about the relevant policy and precedent. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry! I'm having difficulty finding the correct authority to consult explaining how to proceed. Thanks. - Fantr (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
i want to ask why global security is not a reliable source.many other things in other articles are associated from global security.org.please explain.Dil e Muslimtalk07:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, my feeling is that they don't meet WP:RS, and I've removed them from articles before. However, I could see using them in some cases--that is, specifically in issues related to global security, international politics, etc. In particular, given some of their authors, I'd probably be willing to be convinced about specific military claims that they made. However, I don't see any evidence that they should be considered a reliable source for religious topics, which is how you're using them. Really, this is no different than the fact that we couldn't use a religious scholar, no mattered how respected in her/his field, as a reliable source for scientific information. So, do you have any detailed information about the author of the specific article you were referring to? Maybe they did get some sort of a guest expert on Islam. Also, this is definitely a matter I'd be willing to get the input of others on; I'd be happy to open up a thread at WP:RSN if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me dropping in; I was just passing by...
"Reliable source" is not black and white; some sources are more reliable than others, and it depends on context. I'm guessing this is about Barelvi. As an aside, Globalsecurity's page on Barelvi appears to have some textual similarities to a couple of books written by other people; it's difficult to know who copied from who but we should never link to copyright violations. bobrayner (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If you get time, can you look into Am Not New please? They're not getting any better; in fact, the rate of POV pushing may be increasing. No other admin seems to want anything to do with this dispute (understandably) Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for a good rationale
We are now able to get on with creating an encyclopaedia instead of discussing a few cherry picked articles and on the wrong place. Is it possible that you can go in after a few days and collapse not only your closure but the withdrawn one? The family of Kelly Yeomans really do not need to have their attention drawn to the discussion.
Wise of you to suggest a 6 month thinking space and a different venue. Whatever the eventual outcome we really do not need to drag the individual articles through the mire. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I just happened to see it on the admin dashboard and it seemed clear enough what the outcome is. As for collapsing in a few days (I like keeping it open for now so people can easily read the summary), I'm willing to do that. Could you remind me? I'm almost certain to forget. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
With two of us trying to remember we stand a chance. I don't see why they had to drag an article set through the mire, really. This was more properly a policy issue. BUt they did, and we discussed, and then fired artillery over each other's heads killing random wildlife instead. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if I might ask a favour
Two or three of us have been working hard on an essay appropriate for articles about notable suicides, ie where the suicide is notable but not the person killing themselves. The brouhaha started as we were considering it to be ready for being allowed to escape from user space into the wild, so we have delayed to allow the fuss to cool down. I was hoping you might take a moment to review the contents. I'm basing this hope on your happiness to grasp the nettle of closing the multiple move request and the way you cit through the enormous set of verbiage in that discussion.
I absolutely do not expect you to agree with everything in it. It is, as far as we can achieve it, a reflection of current policies, guidelines and practices, coupled with some humanity. Obviously you will edit anything you disagree with, and will, I hope, use its talk page to discuss why.
I know we don't need anyone's specific approval to move it to Wikipedia: space. I'd just value your eyes on it as an additional set. YOu will find it in the My Toolbox section of my user page, at the foot of a short list of things I find useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Pashtun People
Writing Pastun in Hindi script has no relation with the Pastun People topic. Read the talk page it has already been discussed, but anyways I have made a separate section if you wanna add in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddony (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I've replied on the article's talk page. However, I don't see where it has already been discussed--there's nothing on the current talk page other than your new note, and there's nothing in the most recent archive, which stretches back to 2011. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Jaffrelot is always highly questionable,
you reverted my edit in which i added refrence fron book of Jaffrelot.you reverted my edit saying that"Jaffrelot is always highly questionable,".can you explain please.Dil e Muslimtalk17:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Christophe Jaffrelot is reliable but (a) your other source is not; and (b) it could probably be better phrased if Jaffrelot is your only reliable source. I've not read the entire article & so cannot pass comment regarding whether is it due weight etc. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, Am Not New, I was confusing Jaffrelot with someone else. I see that you've reinserted just the Jaffrelot, which is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Beyond this, though, he still seems to be getting reverted here and there by several other editors due to NPOV issues and tendentious editing. He's also either trolling or making more attempts to twist words and sources on several talk pages. Would it constitute canvassing if I contacted an admin who hasn't been involved? I understand your preference based on your comments at ANI, but he really needs some sort of sanctions soon. As evidence by his comments on talk pages for three articles you know about and the SPI investigation, he appears to be getting quite bold in which case this behavior could get worse. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu/Archive Shabiha, Sunnibarelvi and Am Not New have all been banned as sockpuppets along with Trust on ALLAH and Child Start Grown Up, along with Msoamu being blocked for two weeks. It was like I suspected. Now I just have to fight the urge to be paranoid all the time, seeing as how my paranoia has now been confirmed once, haha. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that was actually the first thing I checked when I logged on WP today (ctrl-F Am Not New on my watchlist). Thank goodness that's done...for now. Of course, it's highly likely that someone who's socked more than once will do it again...but at this point we're starting to collect enough behavioral evidence that it will be easier and easier to spot the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sigh. And here is a part of the problem that I touched on in your previous mention of Jaffrelot above. You appear to be attempting to cite him in ways that distort what he says. Perhaps this is a comprehension issue but, regardless, the revert is correct and it would be very difficult to rephrase it in a manner that would be both accurate and relevant. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Am Not New, I think you're confused if you're expecting my help. If I were not WP:INVOLVED, I would probably block you indefinitely. I'm still hoping someone else will take a look at your editing and see how you are clearly not here to help build a neutral encyclopedia. It is extremely obvious that your only goal is to promote the Barelvi, to mark them as the only true Sunni, to denigrate other Sunni, and to generally push your own personal opinions. Now, to be fair, it's possible that you simply don't have the English ability to understand our rules and policies--that is, you may simply be unable to contribute here...but whether you're here with bad intent (POV-pushing), or simply unable to understand, you are not benefiting the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Qwyrxian! Sorry for missing your comment on Sitush's talk page; I've been pretty busy on- and off-wiki the last few days, and I guess I didn't see it. If you're still interested in the script, you can install it by copying and pasting the following line of code:
Hi Q, this user is adding poorly unsourced contents and also adding contents/texts that are not properly written. The user's writting style is most of the same as like this blocked user and also they both (if we compare) adds the same source and make changes without giving any (changing) sources. To support the statements the user has added reviews from readers (you can see the article for more examples). The article was in more or less in good condition for some months ago but one due to "some" users the article's quality has been decreased. I'm quite unsure what to do. Do you have suggestions what can be done to the article? Tolly4bolly15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not certain that they're the same user--most importantly, Nicholas brain's edits are sourced, while Julian devian's were unsourced. The timing of their edits overlap--it's not like Nicholas started after Julian was blocked; Nicholas even edited the Shetty article before Julian was blocked. There are some similarities, but I don't see enough to clearly call them the same editor.
More importantly, though Nicholas brain's edits are, generally, sourced. Yes, the grammar is imperfect, and I could even see an argument for removing some of the as being excessively promotional, but that's a matter for editorial discussion. The best thing you can do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, specifically invite Nicholas there, and try to resolve the dispute. If Nicholas refuses to engage, then you may need to pursue another direction, but his edits don't seem to be inherently bad. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I will try to do so if the user continues to add same over and over again. Tolly4bolly07:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian,
I am writing because I saw you had the most recent post on the talk page for "Judith Butler." I have a question -- and please pardon my ignorance -- I am rather unfamiliar with how editing works for pages that are "semi-protected." I am Judith Butler's research assistant at UC Berkeley, and she asked me to inquire how to go about making some "corrections and clarifications" to her own page. Are there ways in which Judith or I can make the changes directly, or must they be submitted to someone with a different "editing clearance" -- you for instance -- to make the necessary corrections and clarifications? Thanks very much and looking forward to hearing from you.bmwer2000 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bmwer2000, thanks for your questions! There are definitely ways that you/Butler can help improve that page. First, in response to your question, "semi-protection" means that new and unregistered users are prevented from editing the page. In the case of the Judith Butler article, some Wikipedia administrators added this protection because unregistered users were vandalizing the page and also trying to push some criticism not backed up by reliable sources onto the page. So, to protect the subject and the encyclopedia (in the normal sense of the word), we apply "semi-protection". This means that since you've registered an account, after 4 days and 10 edits to other Wikipedia pages, you could conceivably edit the page directly.
However, as a general rule, we recommend that people in your position not edit the page directly, even once you technically can. This recommendation is covered under our conflict of interest guidelines. While we don't forbid editing with a COI, what we've found is that COI editors have a great difficulty in remaining neutral, and in only including information which can be verified by reliable sources. Instead, we recommend that you post on the article's talk page (Talk:Judith Butler) about the changes you think should be implemented. Then other interested editor's can help evaluate the material and make the edits directly. If no interested editors show up, there's a way to bring the requests to the attention of others; for now, since I'm "watching" the page, I think it should be okay without that extra step.
So if there are things you/Butler think can be improved, please let us know there. I'm happy to help, and to help guide you through what can at first be quite a bevy of procedures and policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, it's been revealed that I've secretly had an admin account for the past two years. Whatever shall I do! MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on User talk:Money220, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Big news!!!
This image, will appear on the commons MAIN page on June 10 2013!! Please view it on that day!
The flower was photographed and grown by me, and is now also considered a Quality image! --✯Earth100✯(talk✉)05:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Qwyrxian. I don't know if you're still watching this article, but I'm concerned about semiprotection expiring. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the IPs and newbie accounts who post to the talk page are one and the same. Once again, I couldn't make head or tail of the latest edit request, and I ended up reverting to your version. No big deal, but I'm not sure I did the right thing. Rivertorch (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I see your revert. I've got the page on my watchlist, so if it starts being bad again, I'll reprotect. It's generally bad to have the TP semi-protected, but we can do it if necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that Miszabot can see anything inside the talback template; there has to be a signature outside of it for the bot to notice. Usually I try to just remove them by hand, but sometimes I forget. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Awarded by Vjmlhds for helping me (in a "tough love" sort of way) become a better Wikipedian. Sometimes a man needs a kick in the backside to wake up, and you weren't shy about providing it, but it was for good cause. (talk) Vjmlhds16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Despite your warnings I've just deleted another of his uploads claimed as his own work which was a blatant copyvio from Flickr. NtheP (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
From Vjmlhds
The Admin's Barnstar
Awarded by Vjmlhds on May 14, 2013 for whipping him into shape to become a better Wikipedian
I'm glad you view this positively; I can tell that you do really understand the subject matter well, and thus are a definite asset to the encyclopedia when you stick with what published sources state. If you have questions, you're always welcome to ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I appriciate that. I have made a concerted effort in the last month to add references whenever I add new information to an article, and I have gone back and carpet bombed at least 3 or 4 dozen articles with references that I had previously negelcted to in the past. I'm not exaggerating when I say in the last month or so, I've added probably 100 or so total references to various articles. And I'm also working to not allow any disputes I have with other editors to get out of hand. I don't need to go through another Administrator's notice board. I also appreciate the offer to ask questions. As a gesture of good faith I want to give you this Back Scratcher's Barnstar. The Back Scratcher's Barnstar Awarded by Vjmlhds on May 14, 2013 in a continuing effort to work to improve Wikipedia and stay withing the rules, and requesting you be avalible to ask a question to if I ever find myself in a quandry. I'm not trying to trivialize the barnstars by throwing them around like they're candy, but I use them to show good faith and appreciation the breaks you gave me and not dropping the hammer on me when you could have. (talk) Vjmlhds23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Bengalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
This article is being relatively heavily revised by employees of the same company. I added the COI tag but it was removed by these same editors. On the one hand, it is good that the current editor once noted (now removed) that he/she/they works for McGraw-Hill, but it seems that there is something slightly sinister, perhaps unintentioned, about companies writing their own articles. Since you seem to have experience with these sorts of matters, could you please help? Please check the first and last entries at User:Rustysurfing07. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
All of the original content is still there. Just added new information and updates to cite and reflect our new company name. I totally would understand Smokefoot's position if anyone had been removing information that is critical of a company. That would not be in the interest of honesty and neutrality.
All that has been changed is i've added the new corporate structure, the name of the company (which has changed) and 3 press releases, the new structure of the company and about selling a current portion of the company that is no longer under our company products. That's all.
Also, I was updating my bio which still states the same info.
I find it odd that Smokefoot is thinking there is an issue in that update...with changes which has just occurred last week (keeping this page up to date, with FULL citations). I am just trying to help the community with updated information. Thanks! - Rustysurfing07Rustysurfing07 (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I plead guilty for possibly pulling the trigger too fast. We are all wary of corporate remodeling of their own wiki-articles. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. Would you be so kind as to redlink that as an overly specific redirect or something? I would like it red so that visitors to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images won't think it's already done. It should be considered non-controversial and routine. I've asked for this twice before and it was fulfilled. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Huh, that is an odd request; a deletion to make it more likely that someone creates an article. Sure, I can do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you again, but same story. A newcomer in good faith made two into redirects to the genus articles.
Would you be so kind as to redlink them, again, so that visitors to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images won't think they're already done.
Brief note: I'm still at least 24 hours away from having time to attend to this or the above messages; if you need help sooner on the IP, ANI may be necessary; on the redirects, you could try tagging them perWP:CSD#G6; that was the criteria i used to delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Qwyrxian. So, just a quick update for you: before we started talking about the MicroStrategy article, I was talking with another editor, Dreamyshade, who had initially flagged the article as problematic, yet agreed to review the version I came up with, then she took some time off. Afterward, I took your points seriously, and started working on another draft, along with some further points from MicroStrategy, and I was just about to propose another version early next week when today Dreamyshade returned and took (a modified version of) my original draft live. I wouldn't want you to think I'd ignored your points, which I found worthwhile, so I let Dreamyshade know that I did have a new version about ready, and she's agreed to look at it soon. Once I bring that, I'd like to have your input, too. So if you're amenable, stay tuned, and I'll be back. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 05:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll understand if you have limited time, and Dreamyshade has already taken the initiative on implementing and reworking the draft based on some of your comments, so if you'd prefer to let her handle, that's cool. That said, if you find the bandwidth, I've just got back to Talk:MicroStrategy with a revised draft and explanation of my suggested changes. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
File a report at Arbitration enforcement. It's easier than ANI with less people jumping in and out of the conversation, and this topic is under general sanctions. I would do it, but I just don't have time at the moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Just an update. I'm allowing a bit more time for discussion at several places. As long as discussion continues and problematic editing at articles halts, I'm prepared to defer the 'nuclear option'. RashersTierney (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Massive, unsourced figure modifications to articles
Hi there. I'm not sure if this is an ANI thing, but there's an IP who's been adding figures to articles for about three years. A spot check shows no sources other than the recent addition of geohive upon request.
I think these are good faith and do not constitute subtle vandalism. However, he was asked four times in January 2013 to provide sources when modifying figures, but he continued the same way. Please advise.
I was not edit warring, I was trying to do what User:Gtwfan52 was telling me to do in trying to find "reliable sources" for the awards Phelps had won. If you look at the article before Gtwfan52 came into the picture, you'll see that I had all the info I put in the article (which was a mess before I started editing it) was referenced by sources I included with citations. Gtw than removed the awards section, and all I was doing was trying to find additonal sources (and place them directly in the awards if that would help) to verify the awards (which again I thought were covered in sources already in the article). All I was doing was (what I thought) he had asked me to do. If you look through the history of the article, you will see what I had done. I also tried to include some references to try to demonstrate notablilty since the article is up for deletion due to WP:Notability. This was not an edit war, nor even an attempt at an edit war, and I even explained this to Gtwfan52 so there was no misunderstanding...I was just trying to do what he had asked me to do. Whether or not I did a good job at it is for others to decide, but the intent was merely to try to do right by a fellow editor in an attempt to accomplish what he had asked me to do. (talk) Vjmlhds19:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why this has been posted here.
I came to the article and started editing it after the AfD, so the statement by lost password is inaccurate.
lost password also came to my talk page and canvassed me to comment at the AfD. That seems rather improper too.
I don't know what his problem with this article is, but I find his actions of running to an admin and tattling to be, to AGF, misguided. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify. First, I nominated Jeff Phelps for deletion. Second, as I have been monitoring the Jeff Phelps article since the nomination, I noticed Gtwfan52 claimed Vjmlhds was edit-warring in the Jeff Phelps article. Recently, and per Qwyxian's advice, I began a discussion at ANI regarding Vjmlhds. Vjmlhds has been blocked three times for edit warring, twice last fall, and if not for a lack of consensus between Qwyxian and a second admin, Vjmlhds might very well have been blocked a fourth time for habitual violation of WP:VERIFY. There is no "tattling" going on here. My post was merely to keep Qwyrxian informed before running to WP:AN3. BTW-- it takes two to edit-war, Gtwfan52, so you might want to reevaluate your own approach to editing, as well. Levdr1lostpassword / talk20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I was *in no way* canvassing Gtwfan52. I contacted him -- in a completely neutral way -- because he recently edited the Jeff Phelps article. Note that I also notified Vjmlhds, who is very much opposed to my position. I also notified relevant WikiProjects, the article's creator, major contributors to the article, etc. There's no vote-stacking or campaigning going on here. Gtwfan52, you may want to extend some of the very same WP:GOODFAITH you're demanding from others. Levdr1lostpassword / talk20:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In all fairness, Levdr did come to me early on to discuss the Phelps article. He said he had no issues with WP:Verify, but with WP:Notability. I had argued in the AfD to keep the Phelps article, and have tried to find sources to demonstrate notability (all the while with the article already filled with sources to verify information). GTWfan52's issue with me was he thought my sources weren't good enough to verify the awards that were listed for Phelps, so I tried a couple of times to find sources that were good enough for him, but was shot down each time. That's when he accused me of edit warring, to which I responded to him that all I was doing was what he told me to do to begin with regarding the sources (which as I said before were already in the article and had asked Levdr about previously). (talk) Vjmlhds21:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Vjmlhds, I never said anything w/ regards to WP:V in the Phelps article. And that's not what this discussion is about, anyway. Gtwfan52 seems to think the two of you were edit-warring, so I notified Qwyrxian who is familiar w/ your situation. Levdr1lostpassword / talk21:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well Levdr, by not mentioning WP:Verify I took it to mean that you were fine with it, I apologize if that wasn't the case. And speaking of apologies, Gtwfan gave one to me on my talk page, as he realized what it was I was attempting to do and realized it wasn't edit warring, so hopefully this thing can be put to bed (talk) Vjmlhds21:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I have retracted that....please drop this. I do not know what is the deal here, but I want nothing to do with it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The "deal" here, Gtwfan52, is that you accused Vjmlhds of edit-warring, something he has been blocked three times for. Accordingly, I notified Qwyrxian, an administrator who is already familiar w/ this situation. Levdr1lostpassword / talk21:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested in hearing what the owner of this page has to say about this. Other than that, this is closed in my book. BYE! Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Vjmlhds was, in my opinion, within the grounds of acceptable edit wrt the edit warring concerns. Each edit that Vjmlhds made to the article was with a different reference. Obviously Vjmlhds needs to get a better grasp of WP:RS, but that's a different matter, and one that requires more subtlety and time. The matter was close; after Gtwfan had rejected two sources, it probably would have been better for Vjmlhds to take the matter to the talk page, but since each time was an attempt at a new/better source, it's alright.
Gtwfan, you were absolutely not canvassed. If you read WP:CANVAS, it explicitly states that it is acceptable to notify editors who've participated previously in a discussion; in the case of an AfD, one really should always notify the article creator and one may notify other significant contributors. That being said, it was a fairly odd thing to do, given that Gtwfan first edited the Phelps article after the AfD nomination, which means that he must have been aware of its status. Notifying other groups, Wikiprojects, etc., is also fully acceptable per WP:CANVAS (assuming the notification is neutral). Regarding why Levdr1lostpassword brought the matter here, it's because I told him to. Vjmlhds has had previous problems with adding unverified information to articles, and sometimes edit warring to keep that unverified info. I've said that I will take action to protect the encyclopedia in this regard, and told Levdr that he could contact me if he saw similar problems, since I don't generally watchlist topics w/in Vjmlhds' sphere of interest, while the two of them overlap quite a bit. And, of course, just as Vjmlhds needs to be careful about how he edits, Levdr will need to take care not to report when the matter doesn't warrant it. I understand why Levdr thought this was edit warring, especially given your (Gtwfan's) edit summary, but I think a careful check shows that it wasn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. As I told Gtw, he asked me for better sources, and I tried to provide them. Gtw realized this after awhile, and he both retracted his edit warring complaint and apologised for "shooting first and asking questions later". (Vjmlhds) Vjmlhds03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. McKhan (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
..of course, in this case, you are involved. Cheers, TheStrikeΣagle 14:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Done Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Bengalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.