User talk:Qwyrxian

Update to MOS or no?

Qwyrxian, discussion in MOS Talk has dried up. What about update to MOS:COLLAPSE? I know update language was being drafted. (I trust my suggestion to give consideration for difficult or brilliant game continuations in addition to chess problem compositions did not complicate matters inextricably; a responding editor thought the distinction wasn't important.) Without change I'm wondering what profit from all the involvement and discussion? (Without change, isn't it game for the same issue to repeat all over again, covering the same bases again? That seems wasteful and somewhat pointless to me.) Just trying to make sense of all the effort. Is there a timeline I don't know about for installing the update language to the MOS? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually, RfC's are supposed to run for 30 days. However, if the discussion has stopped, it's unlikely anyone else is going to jump in. There appeared to be a good consensus to change the MOS to include some allowance for collapse boxes for chess articles, though we disagreed on the exact wording. I'll make a comment on the talk page, then make the change directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't realize it had actually gotten archived. Well, I'll still go ahead and make the change, citing the archived discussion. Even though I disagree, given that at least two people want the broader language regarding continuations, I'm willing to accept it. That is, I won't add in the stipulation that the collapse can only be done if reliable sources would also "hide" or "obscure" the answer or continuation. I'll just take my best shot at a wording, and others can make modifications as they see fit. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can see the addition in this diff. I toyed with a bunch of different wordings. On the one hand, it feels very awkward to me to specifically name exactly one subject (chess) in the MOS (it seems like WP:BEANS). On the other hand, I couldn't think of any broader wording that wouldn't lend itself to exactly the sort of abuse I was worried about at the beginning. That is, any general discussion of "game continuations" could easily, to me, be taken as license for someone to say "Hey, put the end of that video game in a collapse box because it ruins the surprise!" or "Collapse that info in that board game article, because it gives hints that people shouldn't have to read if they don't want to." So, I went with the least words I could. We'll see if anyone reverts it or modifies it. I hope not though, as this seems like a reasonable compromise, as well as a sensible exemption. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, welcome back from wikibreak.
First, thanks for making the change to MOS! Second, thanks for being open to not excluding brilliant or difficult game continuations in the MOS update language. Third, I understand what you say about keeping the language simple, so it doesn't draw flies, and I've done some thinking about it, and I think the update language can be simplified even further and even be more precise. Here's what I'd suggest:

Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzle diagrams.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess diagram puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess diagrams containing puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or diagrams containing chess puzzles.

It turns out (if I'm right) that "chess puzzles" does a better job than "chess problems", because after reading Chess puzzle, I see the definition of puzzle encompasses chess problems. The article says:

Whereas the term chess puzzle refers broadly to any puzzle involving aspects of chess, a chess problem is an orthodox puzzle [...] in which one must play and win or draw a game, starting with a certain composition of pieces on the chess board, and playing within the standard rules of chess.

Also, throughout the discussion I forgot about chess endgame studies, which are essentially chess problems too but not exactly. The Endgame study article says:

An endgame study is a composed chess position — that is, one that has been made up rather than one from an actual game — presented as a sort of puzzle, in which the aim of the solver is to find a way for one side (usually White) to win or draw, as stipulated, against any moves the other side plays.

And regarding brilliant or difficult game continuations, there isn't a specific WP article corresponding to those, but it seems they would fall under "chess puzzles" according to the WP article definitions, see here (from Chess puzzle):

Chess puzzles can also be regular positions from a game (with normal rules), usually meant as training positions, tactical or positional, from all phases of the game (openings, middlegame of endings). These are known as tactical puzzles. They can range from a simple "Mate in one" combination to a complex attack on the opponent's king.

and here (from Chess problem):

Problems can be contrasted with tactical puzzles often found in chess columns or magazines in which the task is to find the best move or sequence of moves (usually leading to mate or gain of material) from a given position. Such puzzles are often taken from actual games [...] and are used for instructional purposes.

So to summarize, I think the update language should mean to include "chess problem compositions, endgame studies, other chess puzzles, and brilliant or difficult game continuations"; but of course that language would be absurd as update language, and unnecessary too, since "chess puzzles" seems to cover it all (according to the definitions in the other WP articles). What do you think? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. A perfect example of what I said in prev discussion about game continuations being sometimes segregated (hidden) in reliable sources, and sometimes not, is reflected in the way article Alexander Alekhine was constructed by other editors. (There you'll see diagram "Reti vs Alekhine" which is a game continuation *not* hidden, [followed by an endgame study (chess problem) where solution is hidden of course,] followed by the "Alekhine vs Yates" diagram which is a game continuation that *is* hidden.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to re-read this again tomorrow, but I have no problem switching from "problem or game continuation" to "puzzle", and defer to your expertise if you think that captures the whole idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Chess puzzle" wasnt' in my own active vocabulary, I'm just accepting/processing the def in the article. There seems to be good internal consistency of all the terms' defs between articles. (Impressive!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition the WP internal definitions seem to be consistent w/ definitions in the chess world (shocked!). For example, the July 2011 Chess Life (p. 8) has article on chess problems, and quotes from a book by Frank Fiedler, giving a composed game problem, with title "The Player's Puzzle".

Are we ready to simplify the MOS language? I think all the ones I listed are equally good. (You pick!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a few weeks ago; sorry, I forgot to tell you here! If you check MOS:SCROLL, it now says, "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles." That's a fair wording from your perspective, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC):

Thanks. (I hadn't looked.) About "fair wording", yes for phrase "chess puzzles" incorporating chess problems (and endgame studies, and brilliant or difficult game continuations), as explained above. But I'm not sure what the entire sentence means ... Does it imply "Collapsible [...] may be used in [...] chess puzzles [...] that consolidate information covered in the main text"? If so, then that would be wrong! If "navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles" means "or in chess puzzles" without that requirement, then that would be right! So I really don't know what the sentence is saying. (Do you?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it mans that there are four times that collapsing can be done:

1. in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text
2. in navboxes
3. in infoboxes
4. in chess puzzles.

So, all chess puzzles are automatically exempt from the restrictions on collapsing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Was wanting that to be true. (Happy!) Thx for your support on this MOS language update. (I for one will not abuse it.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Levdr1lostpassword's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Some pod suggestions for you

Hi Qwyrxian! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and there are a few I thought you'd be a good fit for: Composition II, New Media and Development, or New Media: Innovation, Community, and Dissidence". If you're up for supporting one or more of those classes, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor(s).

There some other classes that you might be interested in, too, so feel free to browse and sign on with a different class if you find something more appealing.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

RFPP for Kurmi

So you know. I will drop a note on Salvio's page as a courtesy, since they were the protecting admin. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I provided my input. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say that the ability to request unprotection at a place which advertises itself as being for protection is somewhat non-intuitive. That there may have been some confusion regarding this is probably to be expected. OTOH, short of setting up yet another noticeboard, I cannot think of an easy solution (a rename, for exmaple, would have to be quite lengthy "Requests for Page Protection or Unprotection". - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that, in part, its because un-protection requests are so exceedingly rare. Removal of full protection generally requires discussion with the protecting admin first, and semi-protection is almost always warranted when applied because of disruptive IP editing--this case is a bit unusual because it's not vandalism of BLP violations, but rather violations of NPOV, OR, V, and consensus. I'll be quite piqued if a new admin removes the protection, given the fact that there have been no constructive IP edits in at least 4 months. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And I see EdJOhnston has declined; have to modify my message on Talk:Kurmi. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Demand for apology

You have misrepresented my words in your statement on the Arbitration case. I'm trying to resolve this dispute privately and amicably with you before further steps will be taken in the Dispute Resolution. I ask you politely to withdraw your misrepresentation unconditionally by a declaration on the Main Case's talk page since your statement cannot be modified on the Main Case page. STSC (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, help me to understand how I misrepresented you? Are you saying that if consensus agreed that the current name is correct, and meets our standards for article/place naming, that you would no longer consider the NPOV-title tag necessary, and would no longer pursue moving the article to a new title? In other words, will you accept a community based decision that accepts the SI name? Because when I re-read your words now, in context, they still seem to say to me that your opinion is that SI cannot be an acceptable title for these articles. I promise you that I am not intentionally "misrepresenting" your words--my interpretation of your words is that you will only accept any outcome of dispute resolution if that outcome is not Senkaku Islands. Now, that may well not be what you intended, so if you state here that you will accept (another) outcome of DR in favor of the current title, then I will apologize on the talk page for reading your words in a way different than that which you intended.

As a side note, just to clarify my own position, I will accept a community consensus to move the article title to another name. I firmly believe that such a move would be wrong, a failure to interpret both the relevant data and our policies, but I will accept such a decision. In fact, when looking back through the archives, my original position was that we should probably switch to "Pinnacle Islands"; it was only after looking at all of the available information, plus the outcome of the last RfC, that my positioned hardened to strongly advocate for the current name because of our naming guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to waste more time on this. When you presented something that is not what I said, it is misrepresentation. I deserve an unreserved apology. STSC (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Q: That belief is problematic... namely accepting a community decision even when you firmly believe that such a move would be wrong. Another thing I consider problematic is that you still do not seem to get the fact that there was never a consensus that supported the current article name and that all the fundamental evidence that was used to support the name was overturned. Anyhow, an apology would be kind of an overkill. A re-statement or clarification would've been satisfactory. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry STSC, you still haven't explained how I misinterpreted your words, so I don't know what to apologize for. As far as I can tell, I didn't misinterpret your words, and even though I've asked you at least twice, you still haven't explained how I misinterpreted what you said. Honestly, I do not understand what the misinterpretation is, and if you won't tell me, I don't know what to do. I can make a statement on the talk page later tonight (about to be busy in just a moment), but it's not going to be an unreserved apology. I don't understand how I can say "I'm sorry for misinterpreting you" when I don't understand what you think you meant. It would be a thoroughly hollow apology.

Bobthefish2: Because at some point, Wikipedia has to move on. We cannot argue the same thing over and over for eternity. I'm not saying that a community decision can't be overturned, but that should only be done in cases where something has clearly changed. And yes, we had consensus, because there were 3 separate community discussions (two RM's and one RfC), two of which supported the current name and one of which ended without consensus. It doesn't matter how the original move was done, what matters is that 3 times the community has spoken, and every time there was no consensus to change the name to something else. Not to mention the times when other editors unilaterally moved it to Diaoyutai and to Pinnacle, and each time it was moved back. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the differences hinges on whether or not the opposing minority has a good set of arguments. If it is clear that the majority opinion is wrong and there is a better alternative, then the continual pursuit for this better alternative should not be viewed with stigmatism.

It does matter whether or not the original move has consensus. Suppose there is a 50:50 split between DI-supporting editors and SI-supporting editors and an unauthorized move to SI was made, do you think a move out of SI would've gained a consensus? This is a simple case where people gamed the system to keep the article name as it is by misrepresenting the sequence of events and lying showing inadequate understanding of the casual relationships related to the matter. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And, fascinatingly, there's never been a 50-50 split--the decision has always been soundly in favor of SI. But, seriously, why are we arguing about this here, now? If I'm lying or being inadequate in my representation, explain it somewhere at the arbitration. I don't think I'm doing either; rather, I think you're arguing about a point that doesn't matter. If either of us is behaving badly in this regard, I'm sure that Arbcom will call us out on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is 50-50, 66-33, or 30-70. As far as I know, there were considerable numbers on both sides over the years. I understand it's futile to try to explain to you why you are wrong and such, but I still like to write a response for future reference since you've started out this topic with such conviction.

By the way, I wasn't specifically thinking of you or your behaviour when I wrote that last sentence. You don't need to get so hyped up whenever I deliver a criticism. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ganeshsiddha

my site has been deleates, I read all warnings but how should i start aganin with new/correcive material? please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.99.147 (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on your user talk page, which is User Talk:Ganeshsiddha. After you log in (try to remember to always log in when editing), just click on the Orange bar that says you have new messages at the top (it will appear in about 10 minutes after I answer you there). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

need your help

sir i appreciate and like the work you do....i need your help regarding few of the issue as under... is there any way we can complain about any old users which have license to edit protected pages,i feel in few of articles they have been fighting with each other and they have vandalized the article just in order to prove superior to each other... they have been biased with some articles .....please do let me know the process to stop this kind of wrong and un-judicious behaviour ...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably the best first step is for you to tell me what users or pages you're talking about; I'd be happy to take a look into it and see what the best step is. The first question is whether or not what they're doing is wrong; if it is, the next question is to figure out how to deal with the issue (warn the user, report them somewhere, etc.). Let me know more details and I'll give you more info. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Desired Life Ministries

No, I don't think you're correct. The edit summary says it was prodded, but if you have a look at the edit in question, it was actually marked as a candidate for speedy deletion. StAnselm (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Argh, you're right...and it was the article creator who removed the speedy tag...well, at this point, I don't want to undo the AfD; it's certain to be deleted there, so basically it just gets to survive 7 more days. Sorry about the mess; I'm still getting used to adminning and should have checked the history more carefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just let the AFD run its course. StAnselm (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in India - follow-up

Further to User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 16#List of shopping malls in India: pesky IP, could you permanent semi it? IPs are still having a free-for-all removing and adding all kinds of things, despite the amendment to the lead. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected, and i left a note on talk advising what to do next. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your archive search box

It seems to be malfunctioning. A strange hiccup occurs when I try searching "List of shopping malls in India". I get results like: "User talk:Qwyrxian (section List of shopping malls in India: pesky IP)", where it doesn't exist, instead of archive 16, where it actually is. Odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a problem with all Wikipedia search boxes, including the main one. Basically, whatever search and archiving method we use for searching doesn't update very quickly. If you run the search right now, you'll actually see a result in both my archives and on my talk page. The Shopping Mall thread was archived less than 24 hours ago; my guess is that if you check again tomorrow (or soon thereafter) it will only show up in the archives. I've deleted stuff from articles before and had it persist in search for up to about 24-48 hours, I think. This also leads to the very weird situation that after a new page is created, it can show up on Google search in seconds to minutes (depending on what the topic is), but it won't show up in our own search for days. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique is a concern on the Seinfeld article.

I will admit the Seinfeld article is good at B-Grade. The problem really that my edits at recent times feels consistently reverted because Hearfourmewesique believes the page doesn't need change anymore. Even as something as minor as Susan's death reverted from the bubble boy I thought would work better. I'm not a social expert so I can't think of saying anything but admit he's right and he owns that article I put on his talk page. I'll cool down for a while and hope he can just put in his ideas so everyone is happy rather than "This page is so good, their's no point in editing anymore". That's a bit sarcastic but I can't get the troubled feelings off my chest. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've checked Hearfourwesique talk page and I'm shocked. I thought he's a good guy but he has a bad rap especially with certain Seinfeld related articles. I don't know what to do but I'll wait... until I feel like over edge when nothing is working. After all, I don't know how long I can keep my cool. Anyway, I'll follow the rules as long as Hearfourwesique doesn't push me over the edge. That's all I'm hoping for. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Seinfeld, the truth is, if I were a regular editor on that article, I probably would have reverted you, too. As Hearfourwesique noticed, it was correct to unlink the one tv show, but the change to the episode is merely a change based on your own preference. However, as I mentioned, the correct thing for you to do is to go to the article talk page and discuss the issue. You may well be able to convince other editors that your preferred episode is better (I don't know much about Seinfeld, but it certainly seems reasonable to me). Your comment on his talk page was totally unacceptable, and shows that you are simply not understanding how wikipedia works. Yes, anyone can edit WIkipedia. Part of that means that when one person makes a change, others may undo that change. Thus, the existence of talk pages to discuss the issue. Why should your new version automatically be accepted? Wikipedia requires collaboration. If you want to be able to make changes and be certain that no one else will ever undo them in the future, then, frankly, you're in the wrong place. Yes, I will can agree that Hearfourwesique has some ownership issues, but, still, except when there is a clear problem with an article that is being corrected (instead of just expressing an editorial preference), the onus is usually on the person wanting to make the change to justify their desire. So please keep editing Wikipedia, including the Seinfeld article. When you make a change and some reverts it, talk about it with them. If they refuse to talk about it, or improperly assert ownership, then get more people involved (you can ask me and I'll help if I can; we also have a full dispute resolution process you can use). Really, I promise, collaboration does make (generally) for better articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You make very good points. I should've discuss with him through talk page though I don't know how. I also made a mistake saying to Hearfourwesique "I lose, you win" scenario. But the only thing that rings true is ownership and collaboration. Also, all I'm doing is using my brain and problem solving and nothing else. If I wanted it for my own personal use, I should be banned for doing so. Anyway, I can't wind back the clock but I do wish in the future it doesn't come to that again. Maybe a banner with useful advice on a daily basis might help but that's just a suggestion. Thanks for the advice. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Removing others' talk page comments

I'm really sorry I didn't meant to. I was testing out WP:IGLOO and things went awry. I guess IGLOO is not for me! — Fιηεmαηη ^(talk) 13:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, actually; a mistake do to using a tool incorrectly, especially when trying it out is normal; I was worried that you might be misunderstanding talk page policy. I know I've made plenty of mistakes with both WP:Twinkle and WP:Huggle. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okrug

I wasn't online for the past couple of weeks, but here's the reply(although I should have replied two weeks ago). Btw as there's no English-language source about it, I replaced the wording county with okrug, which is the only term used by the Slavic-language sources, however, I was reverted.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message at the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He still hasn't provided a source that confirms his translation of a term that has more than 5 possible translations. I've already asked four times today for the source that confirms his version and he's still insisting that I should accept his translation because it's just right, although there's no source supporting it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on Storm Contents talk page

It appears to me that the user was stating that they wished they had the admin bit, so they could block/ban the user. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a possibility; but, if that's the case, it's even more of an indication that they shouldn't be an admin, yet. If xyr point is "Someone else blocked a sock of Grawp, and I wanted to be the one to get credit for it," then xyr is desiring adminship for the wrong reasons. The sock is blocked--that's what the project needs. Now, if xyr point was "I actually caught this sock a week ago, and if I'd had the bit I could have prevented more disruption, because I have time and I'm good at spotting these things," then I'd support the an RfA (eventually, anyway). I can imagine a few other reasons why xe might have brought this up to Jimbo as well, some positive, some less so, thus I am hoping to try to tease out the user's motivations. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:List_of_shopping_malls_in_India#Summarized_proposal:'s talk page. 02:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that if you're the only "involved" editor (i.e., if after a week or so nobody comments either way), I think you're clear to move ahead, and just deal with any fall out afterward. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I reckon Sodabottle and perhaps others will weigh in. There are a few of us who are sick of babysitting the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aprstc runs the world's largest fleet of buses?

Hi There, Needs your advice for the above topic on the talk page of Hyderabad, India. Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just glad that people have come a long way

Hello,

This refers to discussion | here.

Glad now atleast there is an understanding that things are not as well-demarcated as some kind of anthropological study.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 13:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that this (Indian social/ethnic/religious groupings) is a difficult field to edit in. In part, the sources are just bad. In part, the definition have such critical real world consequences (social status for high caste, government assistance for low, etc.) that it really can matter what one group is called, and that's not even accounting for the pride. In part, the problem is that I think that there is a fundamental difference in knowledge-making (i.e., the power of discourse communities, as Foucault would say) between Indian scholarship and European/US scholarship. Add on top of that there is the weird collision that occurs because, technically, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but, practically, there are tons and tons of rules to learn in order to edit "appropriately". As a practical result, our articles on Indian groupings are almost always going to make someone unhappy, confused, etc. Maybe in another five or ten years, we'll have passable articles on some of these groups (and here I do mean passable in a Wikipedia sense, not passable in a "this is what my clan has always known to be true and therefore it must be true" sense). The best way to get there, I still believe, is through patience, through discussion, through consensus and sometimes compromise, and, when necessary, through dispute resolution. There are a lot of bad ways to try to achieve other goals through Wikipedia, like off-site canvassing, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. Ultimately, I have absolutely zero interest in whether Group A is a Sudra, Kshatriya, or Martian caste. All I care is that everybody plays nice and that they edit according to policy. I meant it when I said that if you think Sitush or MV has mischaracterized a source, I will try to look into it (obviously, time is always an issue, but I will do my best), and help you or whoever pursue the issue through noticeboards or DR. I also mean it when I say that when I see bad editing practices (tag-teaming, edit warring, tendentious editing, etc.) I will try to make those stop, including through the use of blocking and other sanctions. Many other editors (including most admins) are committed to the same goal. Let me know if you think you need help. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is pertinent to point out that when newbies or editors point out anything related, I suggest this all should be kept considered and issues treated well. As far as I understand, if a community has a King in its history, it is natural that this will be pointed out for pride. A community won't point out list of tragedies/debacles, but surely if something is bright and aspiring it will be projected as a positively associative. This is something not just natural but also social, nothing wrong/twisted in it. People will be annoyed for sure if it is overlooked or projected incorrectly for lack of sources or authors, associated with politics in certain way, twisting in some sources for some political gains.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your right, this may upset them, but all we can do is to point, again and again, to our policies and guidelines which unambiguously say, "If it is at all questionable, and you can't verify it with a source, you can't include it." Yes, we need to be polite while doing so, but we should never compromise our core principles to satisfy the social/ethnic pride of a group. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More than pride, I am pointing out how in a way people move on in an environment that fluctuates now and then, as also includes invasions and is inclusive of those who want to be assimilated. I hope I am clear on this one.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Bulldog73's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marty jar

Hi, I appreciate the edits are not exactly 'vandalism' per se but this user clearly seems to have a personal vendetta against me and has been digging through my contribution page. What would be the best place to report this incidence to, I wasn't sure where to go hence how I ended up on AIV, thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page: they're not vandalism at all, and xyr digging through your contributions is acceptable if xe believes that you've been editing improperly. At this point, you need to actually discuss the issues on the article talk pages. To add another example to the ones I left on your talk, your speedy deletion nomination of Vermin Club was an extremely questionable decision, given that the article has plenty of sources and the organization is not just "significant" (the very low level bar for passing speedy deletion), but easily "notable" (i.e., it would pass an AfD as well). To be honest, I've now started looking through your edit history, because I'm concerned about whether or not you understand WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , I would appreciate it if you keep an eye on this situation for a while re edits to Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail and Margaret Thatcher, if you have a mind to. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

TT at ANI again

Someone's written English appears to have improved dramatically in one or two responses at ANI & on talk pages today. Very odd. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

S can you clearly present your doubts?इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Discussion. Thank you.Cerejota (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I inteded it to be a TB message, these "new" twinkle additions have me crazy... sorry if it sounded formal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I stopped making CSD on your ToSouk page but you must have references in order to have its guidelines. Thank you.--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Katirghe, either you didn't read, or didn't understand my message. I'm not the author of the ToSouk page. I'm an administrator, and I was reviewing your edits. I'm not asking you to change the ToSouk page tag--I'm asking you to stop tagging articles for deletion until you can start doing so correctly. You have to not tag articles so fast and you have to use the proper CSD rationale. I'm very concerned that you're simply trying to move as fast as possible through either Recent Changes or New Pages, tagging as many as you can. Your improper speedy deletion tagging is harmful to the encyclopedia. I want to talk with you about how you can get better at that, and I want you to voluntarily stop tagging pages for deletion while we have that talk. If you do not agree to a voluntary stop, I may request the input of other editors and administrators to see if you should be blocked, because I believe tha your actions are doing real harm to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do understand what you're saying. I know what mistakes I did wrong such as tagging really fast, I will try to stop it and will do it correctly, if I can do it well and carefully. If I don't I will stop tagging articles and do something else. Thank you for you notice and understanding this statement, I will voluntarily stop tagging pages for deletion unless if I do it correctly for example if the article is something unremarkable or nonesense. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you ever have any questions, please ask me at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding article yadav

You have mentioned scholars have disputed the yadav claim from chandravanshi khastriyas. The scholars are brahmin scholars. In india every caste wants to pull down the other caste. Yadavs are chandravanshi khastriyas and there hundreds of inscriptions. Just think with common sense practically and stop being a book worm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

article should be filled with common sense

please use common sense. Majority of Indians agree that yadavs are chandravanshis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truefact1979 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither I nor Wikipedia care what the majority of anyone believes. A majority of Christian believe that Jesus was real, and was really the son of Jehovah. Should we write that in our articles? A large number of people in the US think global warming is not caused by human activity, is that what we should say? Common sense has no place on Wikipedia. Get reliable sources, period. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 06:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Well, yeah, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Hi, the "Controversy" section already existed before the current dispute began... so the fair thing to do would be to revert to this revision. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 DoneQwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How's the ArbCom preparation coming?

I haven't yet started on it. Do you have any advice on how I should write it? I am still trying to decide on how much of it I should be about the actual tendentious editing that went on regarding the PD article and such (you know... the stuff we used to fight side-by-side against in the past :)). I am hoping to devote about 4/5 of the word count and diffs on that, but I probably would want to wait to see whether or not I need to re-assign the emphasis to some interesting (but less relevant) crusades going on. It's a tough choice. What do you suggest? I've always come to you for advice and this matter wouldn't be an exception. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Slow-coming--trudging through edit histories, archives, etc., is not a fun use of my WP time. I'll probably be ready in a few days. As for advice, I'm sorry, but I have none to give. Any advice I give could very easily be seen as self-serving, and I doubt that your goals and mine are compatible in this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not a very good use of my time either. I am somehow okay with this, though, as I come from a family of writers who enjoy writing things. I am not very sure why our goals are not compatible on this matter, since the primary problem I see is really the circularity of all these time-consuming discussions. Your first-hand experience with the Remin Ribao dispute should indicate that the heart of the matter really rests in tendentious editing, although I am not entirely sure if that's the case for you anymore. But of course, I am not going to try to influence what you decide to write about, because I know you are a very strong-willed and independent-minded person. Rather, I am simply trying to figure out what to write about. You know... I can be pretty indecisive in these kinds of things.

So, I suppose you are having less trouble in choosing your principle subject of interest? Any hints? :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I actually got around to draft my text. It wasn't as pleasant a writing experience as I've anticipated as navigating diffs is a very cumbersome and non-user-friendly experience (Is there a way to automatically set diff-display to 500/page?). Anyhow, I did manage to reach the word and diff limit while falling short on providing substantial evidence on tendentious editing. I felt I could've used another 200 words and 20 diffs. Oh well. So, how's it going on your end? Do you need any help? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting an extra 200 words after I mentioned a desire for it. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I realized when I woke up this morning, before I turned on my computer, that I was indirectly helping you as well. Honestly, I really was just helping myself, but I have no problem if everyone wants to go a little higher. I certainly understand why Arbcom themselves want a limit, especially in larger cases with more participants and more pages, foor practical reasons. Well, I'm still going to keep editing mine, see if I really need to say everything I did. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Aww... I thought you were doing this just for me :(. You could've lied to make me feel happy and important :(. Since our goals are both set towards dealing with tendentious editing and circular arguments, shouldn't you be very happy that it's helping me as well? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that the new soft word-limit is ~720. I didn't notice your draft until now and I feel privileged to be allocated the most text and diffs by far :). Alas, I've already written my draft and I am not going to bother changing anything. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

anti-indian

now i am aware that you are not indian and thats why you say who is GH ojha hahahaha, try searching jason freiteg on google books not more than 2 pages will show his correct name and then search the legendary historian who was executed gaurishankar ojha or gaurishankar hirachand ojha , second class historian like Romilla Thapar criticizes him alongside RC majumdar, rk mookerji, rg bhandarkar(really that thapar is insane) also you dont know the meaning of mahapayodhya.115.241.247.223 (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said I don't know who Ojha is. I said that you cannot violate WP:BLP by negatively characterizing people like Freitag without citing a reliable source and attributing the claim. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

...I edit conflicted with you protecting Sitush's talk page; it was not my intention. Feel free to revert my edit. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hawala scandal, explaining my revert of your revert

I reverted your revert of my edits to Hawala scandal. I've fixed the dead links I added (you can add {{404}} to a link if you don't feel like fixing dead links yourself). Primary sources are allowed to be used in articles (the policy is at WP:PRIMARY), and copying within wikipedia is not a copyright violation. See you around. --Banana (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you'll note, WP:PRIMARY specifically includes a link to WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Thus, since the claims are specifically about criminal activities of living people, the primary sources are not acceptable, and I've reverted the edit again. On the copying issue, I misunderstood what you wrote: I thought you were saying you copied the info from an article published by CBI, not from the Wikipedia article on CBI. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something here. The sentences supported with a primary source are:

• In 1991, an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians.

I can't see how BLP could apply to this.

• The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest petition (see Vineet Narain), and yet the court cases of the Hawala scandal eventually all collapsed without convictions.

I don't think saying the scandal did not result in any convictions is covered by BLP. It's an assertion about a political scandal and not really a controversial fact. Either people were convicted or they weren't.

• The Central Bureau of Investigation's role was criticised. In concluding the Vineet Narain case, the Supreme Court of India directed that the Central Vigilance Commission should be given a supervisory role over the CBI.

Nothing to do with individual people.

Which sentences in particular do you object to? Would you be ok if I put the others back in? --Banana (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, when I first read it, I thought that since the point of the article is about living people accused of a scandal, it was just "obvious" that a BLP issue was involved, thus ruling out primary sources. However, after your explanation, I begin to doubt myself. The most "BLP-ish" part (the naming of the accused) is covered by a non-primary RS, so maybe I'm over-reacting. I'm going to go ahead and self-revert to your version (thanks for pulling out the webarchived versions, btw). I may take the issue to WP:BLPN later, because I'm still a little uncomfortable, but I can't quite put it into words yet why I'm uncomfortable. If I do, I'll let you know in case you want to comment. Thanks for being diligent on this; somehow I got it into my head that this was an open and shut case, and your careful analysis made me realize I wasn't looking at it carefully enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Qwyrxian. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Senkaku Islands Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 681 words and 31 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Per our discussion, your evidence length is acceptable to me. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have additionally manage to configure the bot to accept a maximum of 700 words and 50 diffs. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome-sauce! Another editor (Bobthefish2) posted above here on my talk that he wanted closer to 700. Thanks for understanding. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell your buddy

I've been putting up with your buddy Sitush's nonsense on Kurmi (and have been ignoring your inflated assessments of him). If he takes me on, it won't be a cake walk like he's had with others on the caste related pages. Please tell him to hold his horses and think this through calmly. What the heck is he up to? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sitush watches this page, so I'll just reply here: in all honesty, you're both exhibiting ownership over your own additions to the articles. If I had to hazard a guess, you're doing it for different reasons, but the important thing is this: unlike the majority of other editors on caste pages, at your heart, I think both of you have the best interests of WP in mind, are capable of reading sources in great detail, and have a good broad historical perspective to place the issues in. So that means that when the two of you disagree, you should both be more than willing to take the issue to the talk page and actually discuss it. And note: you will disagree, without a doubt. Just because you're both actually following sources, writing NPOV, etc., certainly doesn't mean that there won't be conflict. But the great thing is that when the two of you disagree, you're capable of having a rational conversation about it, one that will actually get somewhere, without constantly repeating the same things over and over again, dragging each other to ANI, etc. You may, of course need to go through dispute resolution, because smart, rationale people do disagree (heck, that's practically what the whole academic publishing industry is based on). The first step, though, is always discussion.

Some specific points: Sitush, in a situation like this, you're trying to enforce BRD too hard. BRD isn't technically policy or a guideline, although I'll admit that it's often treated like one. When dealing with a competent editor who "get" our policies like Fowler&fowler, don't worry too much about getting the right count on who went first, etc. Of course, its a problem if F&F regularly insists upon xyr version before talking, but I hope that won't actually be the case. BRD also doesn't work so well on articles that aren't at a decent starting point, as it tends to preserve the status quo. BRD can work well as a tool to prevent POV disruption, but when you're dealing with a more serious dispute, it can often be better to "give" on the article and take it to talk (and, if necessary DR) first.

F&F: I am assuming you're an academic (you write like one, and have the knowledge of one); in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you're a published expert in UK and/or Indian history. Nonetheless, as I am sure you're aware, while you're expertise is more than welcome, it doesn't let you automatically trump any discussion. If I may be so bold, don't "take on Sitush as a matador" (to paraphrase your talk message); rather, work together, and accept that sometimes an article won't read exactly like you read. And, on a minor point, Sitush does edit Kshatriya; I think that part of what happened is that the "fights" from biased editors tend to be a little more prevalent on the "lower" castes than on the higher ones, so that fixing any one simple thing tends to take much much longer there, thus why Sitush and MV tend to get bogged down there.

Again, my point is that you're both smart people, and both capable of working through disagreements by discussion rather than edit warring. I have no subject matter knowledge, other than what I've read through WP and doing research (only a little bit) for these pages, but I am happy to help with dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom workshop question

Generalization process using trees

Please give some thought to an open-ended question here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are about be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be reader by the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors, as well as refrain from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour within the comments section. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)