User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Block an IP?

65.88.88.203 (talk · contribs) has returned with a vengeance, POV-pushing some pro-Aryan nonsense mostly with inane, sometimes idiotic, talk page comments and occasionally with article edits, eg: at Kashmiri people and Kashmiri Pandit ("the purest Aryan race"). It is a static IP in New York and they seem to go on sprees from time to time. Can it be blocked for a week or so? I've seen them before but cannot remember whether they switched IPs last time - two people have previously tried 48 and 72 hour blocks this year but I'm pretty sure from memory that the shenanigans go back way before that using other IPs, so maybe they changed job or something. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the IP who made this edit is the same person, albeit they're using a different ISP in New York. Eg: compare with this or the similar edits to education articles ("this is a very good school"). - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the first one since it was used recently. The second is stale, at 4 days ago, so I'll leave it be. Given the significantly different range, it's possible that those are 2 different locations (say, work and home), and that if he resorts to the other we'll be able to block it soon enough. Let me know if more pop up. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ricky Hoover

If you remember when you deleted the article for the semi-popular deathcore band Sufokate back last year, I'm here to inform that their old singer Ricky Hoover has gotten his own article. Suffokate was his only band so I don't really think he asserts importance whatsoever considering nothing he was else a part of is on this website unless of course he somehow asserts importance by the sources for the page. I don't really know, I'll leave this up to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.138.93 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted it because that was the result of the AfD discussion; I have no opinions on the band/person itself. I can say that there are more "references" on the new article than the old, though I don't know if they're all reliable. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about metal to know which websites are generally considered to be WP:RS, so I'm not comfortable starting an AfD myself. However, I am willing to open an AfD on your behalf, since as an IP you can't create the pages. I will tag the page as of questionable notability right now, though, because I can tell it's only iffy. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Thank you for correcting me, but please have a look at the page's history and deletions it has. Sorry to say this but few Wikipedians are again and again, without using Talk Page are reverting and deleting the edits of new, but sincere users without mentioning and giving enough time to correct their mistakes or even hearing others point of view. This way Wikipedia will not prosper due to few persons dominance. Please consider moderating the page and helping others to contribute too.. Thanking you for your contribution and support - Tall.kanna (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we may have to agree to disagree: I believe that any edit which violates policy should be removed, no matter who makes it. I do agree that talking more can help, and that's why I left the talk page note. Wikipedia does not, nor is likely to ever have a rule that "protects" new edits for 24 hours; in fact, such a rule would be extremely harmful, since it would imply that vandalism or BLP violations would stay up for 24 hours before removal. I am watching the page, and as other issues arise, I'll try to keep commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive direction, it is very informative and shall try to follow your directions while contributing to the Wikipedia. - Tall.kanna (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Blueyarn

Sorry to bother you again but I've got a problem with Blueyarn on the B. R. Ambedkar article. They're over 3RR with this sort of reinstatement and have also been reinstating copyrighted material. I've gone through the motions on their talk page but it doesn't look like I am getting the message across. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will block, but don't make any more edits to that page now (not even for the ungrammatical nonsense); the only reason you don't get your own 3RR block is because your last revert was to remove a copyright violation. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that why I did no more ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External link at COI

Hi Qwyrxian, this is regarding a discussion here about an external link at Criticism of Islam. Currently in the external links section there are only two websites and they are both from a Muslim point of view even though this is an article about criticism of Islam. A few good links that relate to Criticism of Islam should be added. The point that these kinds of websites should not be linked because they have a certain point of view doesn't apply because the article itself has a point of view (Criticism of Islam). Good quality external links should be added if they match the title of the article.

Regarding this discussion, Amatulić says that "anyone can edit" that site but as Sertimini54 (talk · contribs) noticed every edit is reviewed. He adds that the "site is a very rich and reliable source". Everything is referenced. This page has quotes from people that shows people think highly of this site. In my opinion no other website even comes close to this site with regards to the quality of criticism of Islam. As for him saying links to other Wikipedia projects are not made, that does not apply since this site not a Wikipedia project (see FAQ). Even if that was true point #5 here says Wikimedia projects can be linked.

A relevant policy is #12 here on the EL policy page. This site does have a substantial history (has been online since 2005 or 2006). The policy says it should have a "substantial number of editors" but these kinds of decisions have to be made on a case by case basis. The site covers almost every topic on Islam (see its site map). Another relevant policy (or guideline) talks about avoiding links that have only one point of view but again we have to look at the situation. The article is about Criticism of Islam so we need something that goes with that.

In summary we need a few good links about Criticism of Islam in that section and I invite you to suggest the best links you can think of and we can link those there. I believe this site, WikiIslam should be linked even if we have to put some kind of disclaimer (a wiki that focuses only on criticism of Islam e.g). One site I can think of is Answering-Islam. I know of several other links about this topic but these two websites are the best. Some of these websites have been linked in the Ext Link section in the past in the COI article and at other places but they are removed from time to time by editors who don't want those links there. Maybe me and you can come up with a scheme which can help stabilize these links to some extent (maybe a hidden comment in that section that a certain link cannot be removed without using the talk page). --MUY773 (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last paragraph is where you have gone wrong. We don't need a few good links. In an ideal world, the only links we would ever have on a Wikipedia article are 1) links to an official site (like in an article on Corporation X, a link to www.corporationx.com); or 2) Links to a source that has excellent quality info, especially media, that we can't add to Wikipedia for copyright reasons (say, a link to a repository of images of a certain surgical technique, which are all copyrighted). Our goal is not to add external links, and it never has been; a good overview of WP:EL is "only pick the absolute best, and only when you can't get the info in in some other way". Now, maybe those other 2 links should go, but I've already clearly explained why that lnik is unacceptable. Note, also, that "A substantial history" does not refer to the number of years a site has been up--it refers to have a long history of active editing by large numbers of people, and, ideally, some sort of recognition off of the site that the quality is good. That link can never go anywhere on Wikipedia, and I would consider adding it to be somewhere between POV-pushing and spamming. For me, there isn't even a debate to be had here. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

For reference, as you can probably see, I've removed the other to EL from the article as they also did not meet WP:EL, for somewhat similar reasons as the one you suggested adding. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A comment about Islam related articles on Wikipedia: The current shape of Islam related articles at Wikipedia is very poor (e.g. this editor had done 65,000 edits where among other things, he willfully misrepresented sources and quoting that page "repairing the misleading and falsified material that they have added to Wikipedia will take an immense amount of effort."). So that is how reliable Wikipedia is with regards to articles about Islam - it is not reliable at all. So Wikipedia has basically been hijacked with regards to articles about Islam (for example as I pointed out those two external links with a pro-Muslim point of view had been present on the COI page and this kind of information faces a lot less threat as compared to information related to criticism of Islam even though that is the main topic of that article in this case). This threat continues daily and goes on unchecked. Its easy to get a new username and there may be many others. The evidence of 65,000 intentionally criminal and corrupt edits speaks for itself.

I understand your point about the links. So that means basically no link should be allowed if it has a point of view. That would then apply to all religion related articles. I can see a lot of people will basically be deprived of a lot of interesting information. In this case Wikipedia's policy is not optimal. --MUY773 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Not quite as extreme as "no links with a POV"; for example, we link to the websites of political parties on the articles about those parties. Similarly, we link to the corporate websites of companies on the company articles, and those are obviously not neutral. But to your final point--here's the thing--per WP:NOT, we are not a link repository. Our value comes from us providing encyclopedic summaries of reliable sources. If we started linknig to everything that might be "informative", then many of our links would have hundreds if not thousands of links. For example, think about Physics--wouldn't you say that a link to every major research institute with a good website on any aspect of physics would be "informative", along with the thousands of blogs, newspaper articles, youtube interviews, etc., all by respected scientists, be "informative"? Sure. But, in all honesty, that's what Google is for. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Kash Gauni

Hello Qwyrxian So I made some calls about Kash Gauni and Rock Paper Dice Enter the movie wondering if its been shown in select circles or festivals. Well from what I gathered it is hitting theaters and going thru Chinese and french sub-titles. So your Indiegogo funding comment was below the belt. Wikipedia is non-profit and how many times it fails raising funds and then finds a new way to fund and survive HA!

Well another interesting news yesterday Rock paper Dice Enter's Music ; There's a bonus track in RPDE that comes from Tribal Serenade. Can you guess which track? DanielVanKant (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC) They sent me the track with Video wanna have a look - well first step. Wait till I keep digging more articles DanielVanKant (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC) http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=8673310 DanielVanKant (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the indiegogo page, and it's not funded yet. And even if it were, it wouldn't be relevant--what matters is independent coverage. And that article you put here (from edmontonjournal) doesn't tell us anything about Gauni's notability--the fact that he may or may not be making a movie that might possibly have a song from a group that might have gotten a tiny mention in a newspaper isn't important--unless the article is about Gauni, it doesn't establish his notability.

As for Wikipedia, as far as I know, we've exceeded our fundraising goals every year for the past decade at least--and we're talking, literally, millions of dollars. So, yeah. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That indiegogo funding is closed silly for over a year. You put it in there and now you are saying its irrelevant. Thats what I am saying Hypocrisy on your admin abilities. I am glad you read the Edmonton Journal article. I will send you more and build all truth why this is notable. Aha I am glad you are meeting your goals but unfortunately Wikipedia is not meeting its goals to have people like you on board. Its not the money that counts its the human capital. Every tiny will boil the ocean on the news of Kash Gauni. Here is another news that came up just after your message. Kash Gauni helped shoot a Music video for an upcoming group Karma which is Trending at #19 on Toronto Rock Charts. The radio interview mentions he just did it free for the. I am telling you Mr. Qwyrxian this guy is something whose story needs to be told. he is one guy who is quietly changing scene of Indie films and music. We have started pursing what he is doing next and you may be right at some point you guys will have nothing to object to cause the list of notable things just keep adding up bit-by-bit. DanielVanKant (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The great part about being human is that when you get advice, you get to choose how to react to it. You've obviously been trying to find sources to address the concerns brought up by Qwyrxian and other editors, and that's good. I don't really understand why you feel compelled to lash out and make complaints about Wikipedia generally or creating an us versus them mentality like you did here. People are trying to help you out and your responses suggest you are not here to work cooperatively; please reconsider your approach. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My partial apologies on the indiegogo page--when I looked at the link, I saw only the dollars amounts, and didn't notice that it had expired. As for the above, again, once you produce the sources that talk in detail directly about Gauni, and the sources meet wP:RS, then we can consider having an article on him. Similarly, if you can find sources that talk in detail directly about RPDE, then we can consider an article on the film. If the person is as great as you say, all we need is documentation. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jetrobot Noted but understand it only makes me human as well.Understand hours and hours of work and effort to find information which is credible and someone just deleting it in seconds subjectivelyDanielVanKant (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC) @Qwyrxian okay good advise to start with RPDE the film and connect backwards. Will do Thank you. Phew its a start DanielVanKant (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Issue at ANI not getting attention

Hello, I raised an issue at ANI about a user who is active in page curation. The issue is here. I suspect this is a good faith user but they don't seem to fully understand that pages need to be tagged, not just marked reviewed. Their talk page is full of seven months of messages about other users having to unreview pages, so that doesn't seem to have had much effect. They are causing more work for others. I raised the issue at ANI however with another episode of the India Wars currently in theatres starring the usual suspects my little issue has attracted virtually no attention. Could I ask you to weigh in? Talk page stalkers are of course also welcome. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week, and responded at ANI. However, my guess is that the user is going to ignore/wait out the block (just like s/he's ignored all of the talk page comments so far) and then resume the behavior later. If you see this problem restart, please let me know, and I'll escalate the blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a joke

See this stuff about the Aam Aadmi Party article. I'm too tired to respond any better after a long, hot day. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo

Your comments are welcome at this discussion: Talk:Royal College, Colombo#College name. Thanks.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fellow Editor

I have been told by editor Dianna that you are the person to see with regards to India related articles. Does your expertise extend to Sikhism? Thanks SH 06:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the mention of my name on Diannaa's talk page (I like the new notification system :) )...but after glancing at it, saw that it was quite a complex matter. Interestingly, I know very little about India, and nothing about Sikhism; I think that's what helps me, in that I can come in and focus on WP policies rather than alleged knowledge. I'm not sure that I want to get involved in something as complex as this, however...plus, I'm not sure that you want me to get involved. The reason I say that is because, for example, when I look at Diet in Sikhism, I see that about 1/2 of the sources probably don't meet WP:RS. I don't think any website that purports to represent one specific guru can possibly be considered to be a definitive source for what the entire religion believes; I don't even think that the church organizations should usually be used for many such claims. I also see far too much quoting of what appear to be primary sources, most of which should be removed in favor of secondary sources that provide an independent, critical analysis of the primary sources. So if I were to get into that article, expect a lot of vicious cutting. Do you still want that kind of help? I can tell you I don't have the time to get involved in a lot of different articles right now, but I can start on one...but if you're worried that my heavy hand will be more hindering than helpful, I'm willing to ignore what I saw at first glance. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Change User Name

Hi, I want to change my user name before continuing my edits. How to do ?... Thanks for your help.Rajkris (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Rajkris, long time, no see. Hope all is ok. WP:CHU explains the process. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush is correct--just follow the instructions there. Since your account isn't under any sort of cloud, the process should be automatically approved. Note, though, that sometimes it takes a week or so, because only a very limited number of editors have the ability to actually do the change. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both of you.Rajkris (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oklahoma Sooners Football 1940-1949

I made the changes again as the record states the team went 7-2-1 which is wrong as they played 11 games and won all of them. Because of this I also had to change the conf. record to 5-0-0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.220.246.24 (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor doesn't seem to grasp collaborative editing

Hello, I've been working lately on the new pages feed. Going back and rechecking pages that I've tagged, I found the following revert [1]. I had tagged the article with linkrot due to its bare links, and allplot due to its being, well, almost all plot. The editor reverted my tagging with the edit summary "rv nonsense tags", and without addressing either issue. Now, that edit summary is hardly enough to make a sailor blush but it isn't the sort of edit summary I'd expect from someone who understood articles standards or collaborative editing. Looking further at this editor's articles created [2], allplot and bare links are fairly common. Aside from the quality of articles he creates, he also seems to have a civility issue. He's reverted the last three comments to his talk page with the following edit summaries: boneheadedness, rv butt-in, and rvt brainfart idiocy by heavily defensive editor. These are pretty representative of his responses to absolutely unremarkable and inoffensive posts by other editors. He's already had three blocks, the most recent in February of this year. Might you keep an eye on him? Thanks. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page, and watchlisted it, but I won't be able to keep much of an eye beyond that; I rarely remember to specifically follow up on a users edits. However, if others complain, at least i'll see that. Feel free to tell me if anything pops up on your end. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

He's removed both your messages with the summaries "gang up", and "thanks but get off me ass". Looking more closely, he was taken to ANI in December 2012 and was as charming as ever: "I will not deal with such people. . . . he can just get out of my way" [3] but the issue got archived with no action. Then his unblock request from February 2013 contains the following gems:

• The warnings they sent my way are illegal because I do not intend to dignify their actions with a response.
• Please remove this block immediately, but I don't intend to work with these people.

And afterward:

• Don't tell me where I can and can't edit.

He has ongoing problems with WP:CIVIL and WP:IDHT. Really, why does this editor still have editing privileges? JanetteDoe (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the reverts, and they fall within what I consider WP:CIVIL...though just barely. While I agree that the actions back in February were bad, one could argue that Eaglestorm is trying to just barely stay within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL. Without further current bad behavior, I don't believe a block is warranted. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly I disagree, but you have more experience. Would you have a problem with my taking it to ANI? Or might that have a whiff of forum shopping? JanetteDoe (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Taking it to ANI is perfectly fine; the bad thing is if you had first taken it to ANI, and then had it declined there, and then after you brought it to me individually. If the community believes Eaglestorm is disruptive/uncollaborative enough to deserve a block, I won't object. Two things, though: first, it would be nice if you link to this discussion when you open discussion on ANI, and second, be aware that if you "fail" (i.e., if the community rejects a proposed block), it's going to embolden Eaglestorm as well as make it even harder to sanction him/her for future violations. So it's your call as to how successful you think it will be. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree that's a danger, however I think it has already happened. JanetteDoe (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Mamama29

Just offering my humble opinion. The user's edit from June (which you pointed out on their talk page) strongly suggests that it's a block evasion account. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies--why does that suggest block evasion? I thought it was that someone was reverting his edits, and he was bitter about being reverted, and wanted people to stop. Are you seeing something else, or familiar with some history there? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I just figured that "I'm editing, fuck you Wikipedia" suggests that Wikipedia banned the editor from editing, and now he's editing in defiance of that. Considering Mamama29's attitude, I wouldn't call this assumption far fetched. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

So... am I completely wrong here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, but why would he suddenly wait to make that announcement until about a month after starting to edit? And I think my explanation is more likely. Look at [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dexter_(season_8)&diff=560848520&oldid=560769751 this edit], which came a couple of minutes before, and was of course rapidly reverted. I think he got pissed because something he thinks is important (episode titles) were deleted, so out of spite he/she vandalized the page. This strike me much more as an immature editor who wants to get his own way, and, when thwarted, lashes out. That's also consistent with the formatting changes he's been doing now that keep getting reverted.

Is a certain sense, though, it doesn't matter much. Whether the user's a returning problem or a new one, his/her behavior is so bad that he/she'll likely end up indef'd soon anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

...aaaaaaaand he's back. Indef, you said? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Soon, not immediately. If I jump from a one day block to an indef for simple edit warring/disruption (i.e., not personal attacks or things that are super bad) I'lll get in trouble. I blocked for a week this time. One possibility is that during the last 24 hour block they didn't even try to edit (just didn't come to WP then--this person doesn't seem to be an every day editor); at 1 week, we can hope they'll see we're serious. Or not. Either way, the next block for the same behavior will be indefinite. Thanks for letting me know, and, of course, notify me again in a week if it resumes, as the only page I'm watching is that user's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel Ban

Thank you for the information:

You write:-

I assume you will level, as you mentioned it at AN

Um, really? I haven't the slightest idea what you mean.

You write:-

the whole point of me closing this and issuing the ban is that I have not investigated the matter in great detail.

At least you are honest. Such an admission in my profession would lead you to the exit very quickly.

To support your position, you write:-

my purpose here is simply to enact the very clear consensus of both involved and uninvolved editors in that discussion.

No, what you did was determine there was a majority of some sort from most who had never contributed to thermal articles. Whereas Wiki policy says:-

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

and [4]:-

Many closures are based upon consensus. Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor/administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closing editor/administrator must read the arguments presented.

Which you have just said you did not do.

Recently the Wikipedia Admin. announced that they were losing editors, apparently without understanding why. Well, on thermal physics they have just ditched one who has more to offer to Wikipedia than Wikipedia has to him. The reason should be staring you in the face, but, like General Motors, you are following a set of rules that result in people departing, true?

Finally, what does this mean:-

When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted?

So I hereby announce in all seriousness that "I contest your action"!

How do I do that?

Have a nice day.--Damorbel (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC) --Damorbel (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an administrative action; it was simply an assessment of the consensus of a community discussion. Part of the condition of the ban is that you can't appeal if for 6 months. I suppose you could try to see if Arbcom (the Arbitration Committee, an elected body on Wikipedia that's kind of the "last resort" for behavioral matters) would override the community (something they generally don't do, but I guess you could ask). Or, I guess you could argue to Arbcom that I hadn't accurately assessed the community consensus...but since almost no one objected, that would be a tough sell as well. Anyway, if you want to try, there's an email address for Arbcom you can use at WP:UNBAN. Oh, and, finally, User: Jimbo Wales has always said that he is willing to be a place of last resort, and he technically holds the "authority" to override both the community and Arbcom; if you want to talk to him, just start a discussion at User Talk:Jimbo Wales. Just make sure that if you do so, you only discuss the ban/how it was enacted/etc.: any discussion of the actual content dispute would itself be a violation of your ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Damorbel, Qwyrx has reviewed WP:CONSENSUS very well, and the topic ban was quite clearly defined by the community. There is, indeed, no reason to "contest" it - as it would be contested to the same community that just enacted this topic ban. Qwyrx most certainly did not mess up their reading of the community decision, and the topic ban is valid. Yes, this could have clearly been avoided if you had chosen to edit according to community norms ... you have outright refused to do so. It's unfortunate that we cannot trade knowledge for behaviour - the two are interlinked closely (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I missed the final round of the AN discussion where the length of the topic ban was being discussed, so I'm going to say here that the indefinite length (already decided) is appropriate. Damorbel has participated little in constructive editing. His main engagement(s) on Wikipedia have been on greenhouse effect, climate change, and then thermodynamics. And in all of these he has shown unhelpful approaches, meaning they are outside the goals of the five pillars. As I have seen mentioned in some AE discussions, before his indefinite topic ban is lifted, Damorbel needs to show good 'pedia building in one or more areas outside his topic ban. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Damorbel might be missing the concept that "Indefinite" is not the same as "infinite" - as you say, once he's proved his ability to work within the norms, rules, and boundaries, he may apply for a removal/reduction of his restrictions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to request that the topic ban be amended to say, "other than in their own user space". The reason for this is that User:Damorbel is an expert on thermodynamics and could make contributions, but has not learned how to work with others on the subject. Apteva (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Such a request would have to be approved by the community, at a new discussion at WP:AN. Such a request would be highly unusual, and, in my opinion, would hurt Damorbel. This is because it would essentially encourage him to carry on the same sorts of behaviors, except only in his user space. That's not moving him forward to the point where he can be a seen as a constructive editor on this topic, and thus make it less likely for the ban to be lifted in the future. Furthermore, it will inevitably result in (possibly unfair) accusations against any editor talking with him and then subsequently editing, as they'll be accused of editing on behalf of a banned user. But, again, this is all in the abstract; if the community thinks there is a specific benefit to allowing him to continue on this topic in his userspace, I would certainly modify the ban wording accordingly. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Well the community asked for the topic ban from talk:heat, but at least one editor involved apparently thought this meant they could still discuss the topic on their own user talk page, so in defining the extent of the topic ban I would not think it should be a problem. It is pretty common for editors to be able to discuss topics they are topic banned from in their own user space. I am not going to bring it up at AN, but it can be brought up if and when they ask for a removal of the topic ban. As to proxy editing, that would only be an issue if they said, for example, change entropy to enthalpy in such and such paragraph, and the editor doing that had no clue what either was or if it was an improvement or a dis-improvement, which is why anyone doing such an edit would be sanctioned (unless they personally knew that it was a correct change). On the other hand, if Damorbel noticed that someone had edited an article to say that the melting point of water at atmospheric pressure is 32° C, almost every editor would be able to verify that should have been F instead of C (or more likely, 0 instead of 32), and would welcome learning of that error. Apteva (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, to Damorbel, I just re-read your points above, and realize I didn't express myself so well. You accused me of not reading the arguments well; that's actually incorrect--I read every single comment, including yours, posted at the WP:AN discussion. What I meant is that I didn't go back through every single one of the actual discuss on Talk:Heat and other article talk pages. I glanced at some, and, given that both involved and uninvolved editors said the same things about your behavior there, and it was consistent with what I saw, I saw the claims raised against you had merit and were consistent with our policies. So I did my due dilligence as an admin, but since we're very much not supposed to be "super-voting", the point is not to review every action you've ever taken, but, rather, to review the consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Note

I have commented on your query on the talk page of Shanta Rani Sharma. A notable academic work should and would have been reviewed in academia far earlier than five years after publication. --Zananiri (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've sent the article to AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at this as well, created by the same user. Six lines about the subject, followed by a dozen about his illustrious family - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girija_Shankar_Sharma#Co-Edited_works-- This one is longer. but just decribes the subject's career. I can't see any notability per Wiki, really, just name-dropping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhanu_Prakash_SharmaZananiri (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

On the first one, I've tagged it for notability; the main question is if those works are widely cited; I've left a note on the article's talk page. On the second one...I'm not sure; being a full Professor helps, have been a Course Director helps...but it's still not quite there yet. Feel free to take whatever action you think is needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Janjua talk page

Hi, I'd already collapsed one version of this at Talk:Janjua. They left me the not uncommon pleasantries on my talk page (since reverted). I'm loathe to collapse again and would appreciate the thoughts of others. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted on the article talk page. If they want to 1) play nice and 2) write succinctly, then they can join the party. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your work - thank you!

I hope it's Ok for me to say how much I appreciate your work in moderating the disruptions by 75. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo

Hi, Qwyrxian. I didn't fully understand you statement on "Unambiguously". I mean when I do a name search on Google, I get large amounts of hits for several names, yet the others I can't find same numbers. As in these names are used in a very lesser extent than the others and the rations are close to 1:1000. Need your view on this ! Cossde (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thx Cossde (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We are back to where we where in Oct 2012. Really need your input. Thx Cossde (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hi fellow editor, could you caste your experienced eye over Akhand Kirtani Jatha, Damdami Taksal and a few other Sikh related articles I'm looking at. The amount of flannel and refernces I have to keep removing that fail WP:Reliable is rising to epic proportions. Thanks SH 08:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at these revisions. I think WP:Competence is definitely a possible issue. ThanksSH 06:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't see what's wrong with that revision. I mean, yeah, the grammar isn't great, but that's true for lots of our editors outside of inner circle countries. Can you tell me more specifically what I should be seeing?

As for a more general look, I'll try to start in somewhere between a few days and few weeks. I'm in a busy period for my job, and it leaves me with less time on WP and, more importantly, less mental energy to handle tasks more complicated than patrolling my watchlist or handling routine admin tasks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with sourcing and WP:Reliable. For example, on the Damdami Taksal most academics like Oberoi and Eleanor Nisbett can't find research into the existence of the organisation when it claims to have existed. Only the website of the organisation confirms this. Allso, overtly long sentences and changes of sentences from Sikh Khalistan movement to Sikh freedom movement (the usual WP:Weasel you get on these articles. I understand the patrolling but. I haven't had much time of late, and that's why I am horrified when I come back, how much articles degrade. I have now come to the conclusion that there maybe a WP:Competence issue as well, with one editor in particular. ThanksSH 11:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am from Canada and I consider myself to write objectively and fair including all the details necessary for a neutral view; I also cite various different sources extensively to ensure that I am writing accurate information. The user Sikh-history has been bugging me and reverting back months of work, leaving behind lots of grammar, formatting, removal of referenced content, etc he first claimed I made this or that wp: violation but then after I kept proving him wrong he began criticizing my grammar. Now his recent reversion of the Sikh page is quite absurd and he continues to degrading various pages leaving others to clean up after him. His arguments include saying such things as the Damdami Taksal Rehat Maryada is not a significant source for getting information about the Damdami Taksal Rehate Maryada. He has previously been accused of distorting sikh history and making non neutral one sided articles by many different users other than myself, eg the Diet in Sikhism page where he removed all the Sikh quotes from the Guru Granth Sahib that criticized eating meat. He continues to attack me personally rather than deal with the issue which I would say is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had a penny of being accused of distorting Sikh-history, I'd be a millionaire. Interesting how here you stopped short of a 3rd revert. Read WP:Game my friend. Thanks SH 20:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

SH's reversion looks correct to me: it wasn't grammar problems that he was reverting, it was changes in basic, factual information, the removal of proper wikilinks, and formatting. As for the points you raise above...yes, in fact, the removal of quotations from a specific guru are probably an improvement, because such quotations are not independent, nor are they necessary representative of the whole of the religion. What we need--what we always need on Wikipedia--are secondary sources, independent of the religion, that analyze the religion as a whole. We can use primary sources some times, but we should generally minimize their use.

I'm going to revert you on Sikh, and then you'll need to discuss your suggested changes on the article talk page (not a discussion I'll be involved in). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

article on huna people

hi i would like to bring to your notice article about Huna people in which i suspect vandalism as it creates confusion with another article named White Huns also named as Hephthalite Empire, people are directly copying and pasting content from white huns to huna people article but when both are different topic and article. i request you to please look into this matter and resolve it. Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, before we get to that, are you using both User:Sushikumar and User:Sushilkumarmishra? If so, you need to immediately stop that, and use only one account, per WP:SOCK. Second, there was just one user, about 4 months ago, who copy an pasted that info (I don't know if it was from another WP article, or from off WP, but the bracketed numbers made it obvious it was copied). So the solution was easy: just remove it, because regardless of whether or not the two groups are the same (something about which I know absolutely nothing), copying things into Wikipedia is always unacceptable. If you see a copyright violation, just remove it immediately; you don't need to tag it or notify a bunch of other editors. Is there any other action you wanted to happen there? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

hi User:Sushilkumarmishra and User:Sushilmishra both are my ids but not User:Sushilkumar i have create new 1 because i was unable to log in using my current id. moving on about those edits so with your permission i can remove those copy-past thing on Huna people artical because if i remove it now then some 1 might undo it and i might undo again which might lead to incident which took place on artical IndiaSushilkumarmishra (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

thnx for the help there, and about two ids rest assure that its is not being misused i have been using wikipedia since 2006 and started editing since 2007 and i can say you a lot this articals have acctually changed and changed in the sense lot of misinformation is stuffed so i request you to please have look at many of the artical dealing with history and miltary Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, as long as from now on you only use one account, that's fine; just put a note on your current user page that states that you used to use the other account. As for Huna people...well, yeah, that's what happens on Wikipedia. People add bad stuff. We (editors like you and I) remove it. We or others add good stuff, and then other users build from that. If a user were to re-add copyrighted info, we'd block that user very soon; if it was done by unregistered users (IPs), we'd protect the pages if needed.

As for your more general concern...yes, Wikipedia has a lot of articles that need work. We've got over 4 million articles, and at least 80% of them need significant amounts of work. You're welcome to start working on any of the ones that interest you. If you have questions, feel free to ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The Kashmiri anon is back

65.88.88.203 (talk · contribs) is back doing their daft stuff on talk pages and removing valid See also links on Kashmir. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

And 108.29.95.63 (talk · contribs) is obviously the same person but their contribution are now five days old. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked 65 for a month; I'll leave 108 for until it starts up again. I've added a few of the targets to my watchlist, which might enable me to see them as they happen and block faster. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

help

hi I have added recently template of history of south asia and indian subcontinent to relavent topics as in like topics mentioned in that template but there is this 1 user User:Pied Hornbill who has been on reverting it back stating reason in few as template dumping and in other as too many templates....so I want to knw is there any Wikipedia policy about too many template or template dumping because I think those articles are related to south asia and indian subcontinent so they should have history of south asia template attached and that template is this

you can find those articles mentioned in this template too....so please look into this matter. and all this articles are related to indian state of Karnataka's history which is part of indian subcontinent and south asia Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Have a conversation with that user. There's no particular policy on the matter; too many templates is bad, and we don't want a template for every possible way of organizing info, but some may be important. After you were reverted, the best thing you could do would be to start a conversation on the article's talk page, not just revert back to your preferred version.

Also, didn't we just talk about you not using two different accounts? Why are you still using Sushilkumarmishra and Sushilmishra? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

wel tnx for info but on that user talk page you can find tht user has been doing it for long as in like reverting edits made by other users and currently I am using 1 id tht is this 1 and I have mentioned about me having 2 ids in my user page Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On the user id, my mistake, I misread the times. On the other user, not a single person has complained about his reverts. I'll tell you, at least 80% of my edits are probably reverts, if you checked, because a lot of what I do is revert bad edits by others. Now, I'm not saying your edits are bad, but I am saying that when you add something new to an article, and someone else reverts it, the responsibility is on you to start a discussion with that user on the article's talk page (or, sometimes on the user's talk page; since he reverted you here across many articles, that may be easier). Pied Hornbill gave a specific reason for the revert; I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but the revert was done in good faith. As I said, please go discuss the matter with him. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

About Government of India

Every Country has their negatives all cannot be part of a generic article which could affect the growth or view of other of a country, That is against the country sovereignty. Kindly ignore content wich could affect mass people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveenant (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions I see you are talking about Government of India. And, simply put, you're entirely wrong. Wikipedia's job, like that of any encyclopedia, is to provide a complete picture of what reliable sources say about a topic. One of the things that many, many reliable sources talk about w.r.t. the Indian government is it's problems with corruption. Please do not remove information simply because you don't like it. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Page curation editor back again

The user mentioned here [5] is back again and marking pages reviewed when they have issues. Examples from looking over their 25 most recently reviewed pages of this writing: DYXS-TV has no sources, Treaty of Accession 1972, Treaty of Accession 1979, Treaty of Accession 1994 have bare urls for refs. As you predicted, the week long block made no impression. May I suggest a block until they respond on their talk page? They may also have English language competence issues, given that their user page does not indicate that English is their first language: User:Lgcsmasamiya. They may have overestimated their language abilities, not a capital crime but it makes more work for others. Perhaps someone could post a message in Spanish, which does seem to be their native tongue. Thanks. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't see all of these,it will not happen again (sorry for my bad english) Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Lgcsmasamiya, thank you for joining this conversations. If your English is not very good, why are you reviewing new articles? There are things that you can do here even if you're not a high level English speaker. For example, the work that you've been doing in creating new articles about Mexican politicians is very helpful. If you create an article, another editor will review it, and they can help with some basic problems. As long as the articles you are creating are not really bad (and they look ok to me), that will probably be easier and more helpful for the encyclopedia.

Would you be willing to agree to stop reviewing new pages? That was our main concern last time. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i will try to do my best Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AE appeal

See WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Neo. I'm notifying you since this is an appeal against the result of an AE which you filed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi

Could you please take a look at Ramana Maharshi? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

172.5.2.207

Haya again!

This User:172.5.2.207 just made an edit on List of Kim Possible characters, Connie & Lonnie, which is identical to the user you blocked for a year (too lazy to look up the isp; 173.89.153.66 ??). Same section, exact same edits. Also, if you check his Talk Page, you'll see he is being troublesome with at least one other page; they are trying to be reasonable with him, *I* see it as the same person behind the blocked isp.

Could you look into this user?

Please and Thank You. — Love Robin (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the new IP for a year. If this happens again, we may just need to semi-protect pages; that would be unfortunate, because there appear to be a large number of pages being targetted, but if the person has a dynamic IP (or knows how to get one), there's really no other solution. Let me know if it starts up again. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and will do. — Love Robin (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Qamaruzzaman

Am I paranoid to start suspecting inappropriate editing? MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping you wouldn't mention it. I'd rather wait before direct action. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Operation Blue Star

Hi Fellow editor. Need your expertise on the Operation Blue Star page as there is a bit of a dispute going on. I can agree that the term Sikh MIlitants should stay in the info box, but I think we need to keep the fact there were many civilian casualties as it keeps cropping up in all the sources. One editor seems determined to remove it. Thanks SH 11:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the person you need to discuss the matter with. Long before you ever bring up a dispute with an uninvolved editor/admin, or raise the matter on a noticeboard, you need to start a discussion on the article talk page (yes, there are exceptions, but they're rare). I don't see any discussion of this, or, really, almost anything, on that article's talk page. If the other editors refuse to discuss, leave them a note on their talk pages (ideally, a note you actually write, not a templated message). If they don't respond and keep edit warring, then we can consider intervention. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Hi there.I notice you have reverted my edit with summary deal with the copyright issue first, then later add it. Its clearly evident (after reading Aam Aadmi Party Talk page and Guy Macon analysis ) you have biased feeling for sitush and always supported him no matter how grey his edits are. I humbly request you to check yourself the alleged copyvio image [6]] before jumping to any conclusion.120.56.237.93 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just taken a look, and decided to nominate the article for deletion. The source given is the party's website, and the entire website is listed as being under copyright protection. As far as I know, that means the image is copyrighted. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there's something special about symbols or logos or something; if I'm wrong, then the deletion request will be declined, and we can re-add the image to the article. Until then, keeping it is potentially harmful to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You claim to be an Admin and your biased love for sitush is enduring but can't fill the image deletion properly [7] so that other editors actually can contribute to its discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.237.93 (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I did do it properly; if you read the error message, all you had to do was to clear the page's cache. Note that deletion nominations on commons are done automatically, with a toolbox link on the left side; it's not actually possible to do them improperly. Feel free to discuss the matter there. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Avatar

I get the impression that Yoonadue is an Avatar... (no link; the new notification-system will also notify him. Canvassing has been made very easy; just drop a name on a third persons talk page, and the person in question will also be notified). How does a new Wikipedian know about spam and full citations? [8] Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

By "Avatar", do you mean "sockpuppet"? If so, who do you think it is a sockpuppet of? As for your other question, yes, those are somewhat unusual things for a new user to say...but notice that he has misused the word "spam", since he removed a source in one part of an article but not another. It is possible that this is a previous editor returning, or it could be an IP editor who's just now become a named editor...but is there anything terribly wrong with the edits? Yes, the removal of the source was wrong, but that could be simple error. Is this editor repeating problems that a previous problem editor had done? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing terribly wrong. I also wouldn't know who it could be. But editing at India-related articles is not doing the best for "assuming good faith", because of all the "discussions" and edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

But turning "wrong". I guess you're following the Hinduism-page; have a look at his argumentation, both the edit-summaries and the talkpage. Either incompetent (which I don't believe), or searching for arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, what is this with India/Hinduism related pages? I've had some discussions on Buddhism-reltaed pages too, but the kind of behaviour at India/Hinduism related pages is really unpleasant. Hav e you got some advice how to deal with this, and keep myself committed to Wikipedia-policies? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In the particular case, I've left notes on the article's talk page, because I believe that Yoonadue has a legitimate concern...though that doesn't excuse the edit warring (or your own, for that matter). The first key to remaining calm is to simply walk away if you're upset and you know that makes it hard for you to edit. Unless you're dealing with a BLP or copyright issue, no huge harm is done if a Wikipedia article is "wrong" for a few hours...or even few days. Second, be careful that all of your own editing is scrupulously accurate, and, when you make errors, you fix them. Third if this sort of thing is difficult, and you don't seem to be getting anywhere on your own, use disupte resolution. Bringing me into the discussion was fine, but you could also ask for a third opinion or even start an WP:RFC (the latter is what I'll probably recommend if the two of you can't figure this out yourselves). Lastly, and by far most importantly, if this is stressing you out, walk away. Wikipedia isn't worth it. Articles on religion, tribal politics, caste status, border disputes, controversial scientific topics, etc. are going to be stressful at times. Since Wikipedia really is now the definitive source on subjects for the "common" person, for people who feel passionately about something (or who are part of an organized group that feels passionately about something) are going to fight about it on Wikipedia. In some cases, there are organized, off-Wikipedia campaigns to try to shape articles into a certain POV...and if you edit in these areas, you will encounter problems. I and others have received off-wiki threats (both economic threats and threats of violence), we've been dragged time and time again to various disciplinary boards on Wikipedia, and we've been repeatedly defamed in really ugly ways. If that sort of thing bothers you, ultimately, you may simply need to not deal with those types of articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interventions. I really like your style. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

And your advice, of course. No Wikipedia this early morning (it's evening now), but meditation and a relaxed breakfast. what I meant with "I really like your style" is, you're responses have a sound of surprise and wonder, like you look at things with ongoing amazement. It's nice; I like it. So, thanks for your feedback. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)