User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 11

Answers and willingness to improve
I have answered to the questions on my talk page and will be working to improve under your mentor-ship. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC) And i would like to promise that i will 100% work i a way to prove myself a good student. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Mahesh
I blew up with him earlier, then walked away for a bit & drank a few gallons of herbal tea. I've got real doubts that your proposal can be made to work but if it fails then it will not be because of any action of yours. So, I've added my support. I must be delusional; you must be a masochist! Just don't tolerate any shenanigans (procedural ones, in particular) because I have a feeling in my waters that they are going to happen ... or is that just the tea? - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * See next section Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Two small comments
I just wanted to say a couple of quick things unrelated to one another:


 * It seems that a fair chunk of M's copyvios appeared when copy/pasting text from another article. A previous editor was responsible. M had ultimate responsibility, but didn't actually do the crime. (However, this was not always the case.) This should indicate that this is the tip of the iceberg with respect to India-related articles, and the mount of copyvios therein.


 * There is a big difference in reading a talk page and seeing a stream of concerns and peas from other editors, and being there at the time. The difference is that we plead, waited, then edits ignoring us, then more pleas, more edits, then more posts urging him to stop. That's sort of invisible just looking at the talk. There is the illusion that we all dumped the warnings at once. Just letting you know that that's the way it went. Best wishes and good luck. M: If you're reading this, please listen to Q, and please check over your work for little mistakes.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your points, Anna, are quite valid. As I've talked with Sitush, while the current wikimedia outreach to india is necessary, it brings a whole set of complications that I don't believe have been considered, relating do very fundamental cultural differences about what constitutes knowledge (oral, mythic, scientific, etc.), what counts as providing info and what is copying, and even styles of dispute engagement.
 * Regarding Mahesh...I'm still mulling over the issue. The "99% of my edits were policy compliant" claim at ANI bother me.  A lot.  That suggests that this may simply be impossible.  If I go forward, I'll have to draft up the language formally; I'm still thinking it through. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I've slept and the pain in my chest has subsided, so it wasn't the beginnings of another MI. I shall apologise properly to Mahesh for a couple of my comments yesterday, which even though qualified were definitely over the mark. Continuing to edit in order to distract myself was not, I think, the most wise course.
 * What amazes me right now is he has had a few days during which he could have been demonstrating actively that he wants to collaborate by, eg, fixing some of the problems in Anna's list. He has, IIRC, in fact only done so when prompted by me and indeed has spent most of his time either on talk pages (perhaps understandable) or playing around with the structure of his userspace. Then, when he has responded to a suggestion that some fixing be done, he has made a right hash of it. This is someone who has been here for a while, is clearly capable of understanding policy/guideline pages when it suits him, but still cannot (apparently) grasp the basics of WP:N, WP:CITE etc. Sure, there may be a cultural issues involved here, and Qwyrxian is correct to highlight those, but I do know editors from that area of the world who are more than capable of doing this and Maheshkumaryadav is definitely not a person lacking in mental capability. It is most peculiar and I cannot make my mind up whether this mentorship will be easy (because he is in fact clever) or difficult (because he appears to be, fundamentally, intransigent).
 * Anna, the CCI will resolve the copyright issues in due course. I filed it because of discussions with User:Elen of the Roads & User:Anthony Bradbury, which basically said that doing so would protect your back regarding the silver sandbox. If Mahesh had created his new pages with consensus and had attributed anything he copy/pasted from other pages then perhaps a lot of the apparent vios would not be visited upon him now. "Less haste, more speed", is a UK saying that may have equivalent elsewhere in the world. - Sitush (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Be careful. Looks like someone may be lining up some new articles for creation/forking here. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For your own sanity/health, you may want to not monitor what new actions he's taking so closely. If xe wants to make suggestions to the Wikiproject, there's no real harm; since xe can't create any articles now anyway, some other editor would have to take responsibility for them. However, should mentorship be entered, we'll definitely be having a conversation about the right time to split. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand, but the reason for monitoring is because he ignores consensus & is wandering around making these edits when he could be improving the existing stuff, as has been suggested to him by several people. I wouldn't bank on him not creating articles, regardless. He has just proposed a whole series of recently deleted forks for re-creation on the Chandigarh portal. Recreating a recently deleted article is almost always a no-no, if I recall correctly. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See Also links on Dog meat

 * The meats I have listed are viewed in similar/logical consequence here in American culture, and in readership of English Wikipedia, namely American people typically find consumption of the following meats: cat, dog, horse among various others as unusual or even immoral. I understand your need to maintain a certain level of white pride and Asian cultural-secessionism, and make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas cat and horse meat the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians and that of non-Asians is far less. But this is nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits, or the eating habits of American's closest ally nations should be seen. The inclusion of horse meat in the See Also section constitutes a consistent American reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine, and not feel humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for some of you to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded at the article's talk page, and reverted your edit to the article. Please do not edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article idea for M
M likes to make articles. Maybe there is some really cool India-related subject. Something that would really fascinate readers, that would DYK easily, that could include photos, history, diagrams, etc. I've spent many months in India, and I know for sure that every second you see something amazing. There's no shortage of subjects. For example, what if M found some product that is made, or process, or industry, or subculture, etc., that he could research, photograph, etc.?

He could take time preparing it in a nicely coloured sandbox, and then let it loose, (with your approval). It might just turn out to be the cure for what ails us all. What sayeth thee? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. I'll propose it to him once I get the formal stuff taken care of. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Langley High School (Oldbury Grammar)
Qwyrxian - you deleted reference to Oldbury Grammar School song on the basis the content was "trivial" and against Wiki guidelines. How come there's a wiki page to school songs at other UK schools and the songs are shown in full in relevant wiki pages? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_song

Are you going to take it upon yourself to remove those also or do you now agree, based on this evidence, that such content is integral to the culture and tradition of such schools in the UK and the content should be restored?

Cresconian

∼∼∼∼


 * First, we need clear evidence that the song lyrics are not copyrighted. By default, all song lyrics are copyrighted unless they are really old (I don't know about the UK, but in the US it's 75-95 years or older, and sometimes even older works can still be copyrighted).  Now, they may not be, if they were specifically released into the public domain, but we'll need evidence of that.  Only fragments of copyrighted works may be used, which in the case of songs would probably be a line or two, and then only if they serve a clear purpose in the text. This is the part of the issue that is non-negotiable: if the works are copyrighted, then they must be removed from Wikipedia, without any exceptions, because keeping them would be violating not just policy, but also the law.
 * Now, lets assume they're not copyrighted. Then I would still argue that they should not be included, but that would be an issue of more discretion and would require discussion and consensus.  WP:NOT, one of our core principles, states that Wikipedia articles are not "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."  I would argue that would be what the song is--just a large public domain source.  A more specific discussion of this principle is found in the guideline, Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. However, exactly how much of a primary source to use is up to editorial discretion.  We'd probably have to seek a consensus, which might require getting a third opinion or setting up a Request for Comment.  But that's an issue we can cover later.
 * As to your final paragraph: No, I'm not going to take it upon myself to remove all of them. I don't have the time or inclination.  Wikipedia has over 3 million articles, and I have lots of them that I already work on and want to continue working on.  Note, though, that the fact that other articles have problems doesn't mean that you get to justify keeping problems in ones you like once the problems have been identified (this principle is called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).  Otherwise, we could never fix any problems so long as others existed (which they, of course, will).  You're, of course, welcome to engage in that work yourself, if you're interested.  The final point, "is integral to the culture and tradition of the schools" doesn't really matter here.  Wikipedia articles are not here to preserve the culture and tradition of the schools, or to promote the schools, or to otherwise show them off.  We're here to provide an encyclopedic summary of factual information about the schools that has been verified by reliable sources.  No more, no less.  Do we live up to this goal?  We try, but obviously its a very long term goal.


 * So, your first step at this point if you want the song to be reintroduced is to clear up the copyright issue. Once that's cleared up, I would be happy to go through the process needed to determine whether or not the song is appropriate per WP:NOT.  Let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian - Thanks to local Sandwell Council archives, I have managed to establish the music & words were written by J.G.Howarth M.A. Headmaster. The current earliest known publication was 1928 in the school magazine The Oldburian. Tips on where to go from here?

Cresconian 195.92.44.114 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's extremely helpful. I don't know UK copyright law, but will endeavor to either find out or find someone who does.  Apologies as it may take me a day or two, but I'll definitely try to start tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, sudden computer problems. I think I have the answer, but I'm going to leave a message with a copyright expert. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, question: does your info happen to say the date that Howarth died? That is sometimes relevant in UK copyright cases.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian - I've been nosing that very point but no info has come to light. He was headmaster at the opening of the school on the Moat Road site in 1926 and pix show him as middle aged then. 195.92.44.114 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was asked to weigh in on this situation. :) This is fairly complex and not really very encouraging to use. First, see this chart at Cornell. Here's the basic situation: if it was first published in the UK in 1928 without following US formalities and it had become public domain in the UK before January 1996, it's public domain (PD) in the US. In the United Kingdom, when the author is known, copyright expires 70 years after his death. Clearly, that can't be the case, since the author was still alive and publishing in 1928. If it was not PD in the UK by January 1996, it will not be PD in the US until 95 years after its first publication--2024. This is true even if it has lapsed into public domain in the UK. There is one exception that might make it PD in the US even if it was not PD in the UK by 1 January 1996: if it was published in the US within 30 days of its original publication in the UK, it would be PD in the US if it wsa published without proper copyright notice or if it was published with copyright notice that was not renewed. We'd need evidence of that publication in the US, and it would have to be within 30 days. If it was published in the US 31 days later, that exception would not apply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very very much, Moonriddengirl. So, Cresconian, it sounds like this is most likely copyrighted, meaning including it in the article isn't even a consensus issue--it's a strictly legal/policy one.  You're welcome to try to do the research Moonriddengirl explains, but note that, as I said before, I don't think that it belongs in the article even if it is free, so you'll have to do a lot of research and then still have to try to get consensus to say that this doesn't meet the restrictions on excessive use of primary sources found in WP:NOT.  Personally, I'd recommend against the effort, but it's certainly up to you.  You mentioned before that this same problem may be on other Wikipedia UK school articles; if you know of any, feel free to remove the lyrics yourself or let me know, and I can help. I'm not going to hunt them down myself, as I have other projects occupying my time, but we do want to get any copyrighted or likely copyrighted texts off of WP.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

BIg thanks to Moonriddengirl for her info. I will dig deeper for dates & PD evidence. I am very sure those who have researched history of other schools & posted school songs would be very offended if I pulled them down as I'm certain they will share the view that they are integral to, and exemplify, the unique culture & tradition of each school and express far more than the lyrics alone (copyrighted or not). So I'll be leaving their fate to others. Instead I'll stick to getting the copyright issue sorted, then I'll be back for consensus. In the meantime, thank you for your guidance and input. It is most appreciated. 195.92.44.114 (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Media bias in India
I've got myself in a pickle with procedure by not opening a discussion about Media bias in India on the article talk page. I didn't realise that it would become quite as lengthy an analysis of possibilities as it has in fact become. I have informed MKY, as the article creator, and Anna because she had commented at Silver about it. I am informing you as probable mentor.

Right now, the discussion is at User_talk:Sadads. I'm wondering about asking whether it would be ok to paste it verbatim to the article TP. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My first quick recommendation is to copy and paste the discussion to the talk page, with a header line that says something like "The following conversation about this article began at User talk:Sadads; I'm moving it here to get the input of more editors." As for the details of the article itself...breakfast first, then I'll take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Enjoy your breakfast & take time to digest (the food, although I suppose the talk page thread also). I am off to bed. I am more than happy to see the conversation copied over & would have added an intro similar to that you mention. I did not actually do so because Sadads might think otherwise, it is his talk page & it looked as if he was offline. He also probably has quite a lot on his own (non-breakfast) plate due to his current RfA. As I said, this is a bit of a mess, of my own making. I have made a couple of poor procedural calls over the last few days but the good news is that I still think I'm a net positive on that score! But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? FWIW, Sadads has raised some interesting points and I'm learning from them, - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Article re-review after edits
Thank you for your comments on my article (located at Articles for creation/Linwood Pendleton). I have done extensive editing of the article, finding a variety of third party sources and changing the format based on your suggestions. Can you please re-review the article and let me know if it is now ready for the encyclopedia? I really appreciate your help and constructive comments/criticism. Thank you! Mrlwiki (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I glanced at it quickly, and it looks much better--there's probably enough there to verify notability. I should have time to take an in-depth look at it within the next three days.  One thing I noticed on a first glance is that the references are all messed up; it may have happened be because of the article move from one space to another.  That's not a problem--it's something that can be fixed, but will just take a little bit of time (and can even be done after the article is moved into mainspace). Actually, I just realized I might be able to make the changes with an automated tool, so let me give that a try later on today when I review the article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After looking more closely, it appears that the references can't be fixed automatically; rather, by hand, each one needs to be changed into the proper reference format. I changed the first two; if you take a look at the draft, you can see how I did that, using the tags, as well as  templates. This will take time.  If you think you can handle it, please feel free to give it a try; otherwise, I'll come back and work on them as I have time and inclination.  There's over 30 references, so it may take me a while.  If you want to try the work, I recommend turning on advanced editing tools; you can do that by going to "My preferences" in the upper right of your screen, going to the Edit tab, then click on the 2 boxes at the bottom under "Usability features".  This should give you, in your editing window, a choice marked "Cite". Then, on the left, there's a pull down menu called "Templates"; when you choose the appropriate one, a dialogue box pops up that gives you blank spaces that you can fill in the relevant fields, then formats it automatically.  You can also type up the template by hand, as well.
 * There are other things that could be improved in the article--for instance, I feel that much of it is overly long/detailed, but that can be done after the article goes live. But I think we should get the references fixed first before moving it over.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your review of my article and for taking the time to give me examples of what I need to do to fix the remaining references. I will be working on them and will let you know when I am done since I am not sure what to do to move the article over and have it go live.Mrlwiki (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've updated the references, please let me know what I need to do next to move the article over. Thank you. Mrlwiki (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for all of your help and patience! I was so discouraged when my article first got rejected but you gave me great advice and help which is why I stuck around.  Thanks again! Mrlwiki (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It's interesting, because we have a kind-of perpetual debate on Wikipedia, about whether or not new users should be able to create articles directly (right now, they can), or whether they should use something like Articles for Creation.  If you had put your original article directly into the encyclopedia, it would likely have been deleted in no more than 7 days, because all bio articles must be sourced; even if a source was added, someone might have removed all of the good but unsourced info.  Instead, since you went through AfC, we were able to talk about it, your draft remained while it was undergoing (you didn't have to bother learning about and arguing about deletion), and, in the end, you added a great article to Wikipedia.  Some people think that making new user use AfC will decrease their motivation, but I still think that having your potentially good but not ready for mainspace article deleted is way more demotivating.  As always, feel free to ask me if you need help with anything else in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Linwood Pendleton
The DYK project (nominate) 17:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Merges
Hi, I know that you have proposed a few merges in your time, and certainly more than I have. I always find it a ridiculously complex process and I did note your recent (very valid) point about how they can tend to get forgotten about by the proposer. Are they really as complex to propose as I think or could it be that I am going about it in the wrong way? I've always followed the instructions in the article on the subject. There are several suggestions for merges in the Silver sandbox at present but I keep putting off sorting the things out. I'm not suggesting that you should do these but just curious about methodology. Eg: is there some sort of tool that could be used, akin to Twinkle or whatever? - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is a pain, and, as far as I know, no automated tool to do it. I do the same as you: following the procedures there by starting the discussion on the target page and add templates to both pages.  I've just finally managed to remember the template formatting so that I don't have to look it up every time.  One thing that I think is particularly important is to get the "discuss" parameter right: both discussion parameters should point to the merger section on the talk page of the target article--that way, discussion is more likely to be centralized rather than spread across the 2 pages.  If there's some where discussions aren't started yet, let me know and I can work them up--if other things (like work) don't interrupt, I can do each one in about 10 minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 10 minutes is about my time also, so no worries. I'll try to sort them out tomorrow. I'll leave the Chandigarh Capital Region ones for now, pending some sort of consensus regarding whether or not the region has any real significance as an entity. Of course, the other problem with mergers is that they tend often not to get discussed much after being proposed, hence they then fall of the radar of even the proposer. I'll have to dig about to find more regarding this, eg: there much be a category that can be examined & which articles are automatically placed in as a consequence of the subst in the proposal. - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

2 Things to discuss
1. I think the birth date of Cordelia_Chase from Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_(TV_series) and Angel_(TV_series) should be added in her article. I know she 21 in the episode of angel Birthday_(Angel). So her birthday must be January 14, 1981. 2. The age of Chibiusa of Sailor_Moon in the manga should be mentioned in her article. I found a source that talks about her different ages in manga: Chibiusa goes through several different designs in the manga as she grows up, but she's almost always wearing some school uniform or another. She's also unusually short for her age, a point that you notice when she hangs around with anyone from her class. When Chibiusa first shows up she's in fourth grade at Juuban Elementary. During the Death Buster's arc she's elected class president of the fifth grade, and at the beginning of the Galaxia arc she and Hotaru are both in sixth grade (classes 1 and 3, respectively). Here's the source: http://www.chibimoon.net/mangaforms.html Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but you were already answered on the Help Desk. You need to discuss #1 at Talk:Cordelia Chase and #2 at Talk:Chibiusa.  I know nothing about these topics, so I'm really not much help.  Once you receive an answer, you need to follow those instructions.  I see that you have already added a question to Talk:Cordelia Chase.  You will have to wait to see if someone responds--it may take a few days.  If no one responds then you should make the edit (but, of course, don't do it if someone says no).  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your message
Please don't template warnings to established editors. For info, I removed a bad tempered and ill judged comment of mine, after I decided it was better removed and restored the narrative. I can remove my comments if I so wish. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read my note, you'll see that I didn't template you--I hand wrote the note myself. You are correct that it is technically allowed to remove your own posts, but, per WP:REDACT, it's best not to. In any event, it's all past now, so no big deal. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt
Hi! This is the last call for signing on for a Wikipedia Ambassador hooded sweatshirt (in case you missed the earlier message in one of the program newsletters about it). If you would like one, please email me with your name, mailing address, and (US) sweatshirt size. We have a limited number left, so it will be first-come, first-served. (If more than one size would work for you, note that as well.)

Cheers, Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mortal Online
I was just informed. It is important official traler (from official account Mortal Online and should be in the article. Basshunter is the biggest Eurodance musician in the world. Eurohunter (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Which, while fascinating, has no relevance. You may not add external links to promote a product or service or person, including on article talk pages. They only thing article talk pages may be used for is to discuss improvements to the article itself.  Since we would never link to an advertisement in the article, that's clearly not what your link is for.  Please stop or you may be blocked for spamming.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Think you're wrong. This video comes from the official game account and on these is of the most recognizable people in the world, Basshunter. This is no ordinary movie, there is Basshunter. I've written that someone added to the article. This is no spam, on Wikipedia I'm quite a long time and know the rules. Please think about and do not threaten me... Can you confirm you understand the message? Eurohunter (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Does not promote anything! Basshunter is a game to promote the film. I want someone added nformation about the film to the article, you know? My English is bad, I do not want to write alone, but maybe errors. Eurohunter (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, I don't think I understand your message, but I also don't think you're understanding mine. We never, under any circumstances, link to advertisements/trailers in our articles--that is a direct, clear violation of WP:EL. You said "Basshunter is a game to promote the film." Wikipedia articles are not allowed to promote anything.  Second, we may never use article talk pages for anything other than improving the article, per WP:TALK. So there is no justification for that link staying on that page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It aims to show the popularity of the game... And what we want... And why do you write in your discussions? It aims to show the popularity of the game and not to promote a video of Basshunter. Eurohunter (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that the video is officially posted by Mortal Online. It was originally created by Eurohunter.  So, it is one of two things:
 * An advertisement. That is, it is a video approved by MO whose purpose is to promote the game. Links to advertisements or other promotional videos are forbidden.
 * A fan video. It is a video made by a player of the game who enjoys it, to be funny or interesting or to promote himself. That is also forbidden (fansites and other self-published sites are forbidden by WP:EL)
 * Either way, you cannot have the video linked in the article. Second, are you connected to the person who made the video?  If you are, you really shouldn't be doing anything at all related to it.  We have a policy on en.wiki called WP:COI, which says that people who have a conflict of interest with a subject (that means they are the subject, or are employed by the subject, or related to the subject) should make edits about it.
 * If you want, we can get the opinion of other editors. I can ask at WP:ELN, which is our noticeboard where people go to discuss what links are acceptable and which are not.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But I do not want anything to promote. That is a fact and important event. Basshunter Fans and Mortal Online wanted to know something about the game, whether it is popular or not. I does not promote anything, this movie is the forerunner in the Basshunter. At the en wiki so we did, and it is normal, if something is known to write about it. It's as if the game appeared in the film Madonna wrote you about this? Fil m is the only source, the outriggers and will be provided information about him in the article... Why write it in this article, and then we will know? Eurohunter (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * First, what Basshunter fans and Mortal online fans "want to know" has nothing to do with us--we make decisions based on our policies. There are thousands of things that people "want to know" that we don't include, because we have all sorts of policies about what kind of information and links to include.  Second, if Mortal online appeared in a film Madonna wrote, I still wouldn't include it.  Some people might include just a simple statement, but most of us would remove it because it is WP:TRIVIA.  You are wrong to say that "if something is known to write about it."  Take a look at WP:NOT--that lists about 40 different known things that we do not include in Wikipedia articles.  In this case WP:ELN, our policy on external links, unambiguously states that a promotional link (that is, a link whose purpose is to promote a product, person, company, etc.) cannot be linked (with one exception that doesn't apply here).
 * So, at most, you could include a single sentence in the article that says, "Swedish singer Basshunter recently made a video which featured Mortal Online." I still think it shouldn't be there, but I will ask at the article talk page and see what the consensus of other editors is.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"So, at most, you could include a single sentence in the article that says, "Swedish singer Basshunter recently made a video which featured Mortal Online."" - This is what I mean. Eurohunter (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

hi
As i don't know how to sent email to other Wikipedia users, i tried to find email id or option to send email but was not able to find.

I apologize for going to Jodi.a.schneider. The intent was to get the articles improved. It was not specific to Talk: Chandigarh Capital Region. Regarding my words, they were not correctly chosen. After i switched off the pc and went to bed, I was thinking for changing the words or the message. Then i thought i will do that in morning.

My vocabulary and style of writing is not as good as others i am involved with. Sometimes the message from the whole paragraph come outs to be different than it is intended to. My mother tongue is Hindi, English is used for reading and writing, the reading is about 500 times more than the writing and Hindi is used for speaking and listening (news etc).

I would try to work on the articles given by Anna Frodesiak on my talk page. Would restrict myself to my talk page and sandbox, or talk-pages of articles invited by you. I think being more active in my sandbox would be beatifical for me. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer. I understand the difficulty of working in a non-native language (I deal with the issue myself every day), and think it's great that you're still working hard to improve coverage of your country here on en.wiki.
 * I imagine my message sounded aggressive, but that's actually what I intended. I don't want to make you feel bad, but I also want to make sure I express how important my message is.
 * Here's the key thing: instead of worrying about the articles you've already created (except when someone specifically asks), I think that you first need to do a lot of learning about what makes an article acceptable or not. I wanted to get across in my message that your articles were never deleted or merged because the English wasn't good enough, or because they just needed a little bit of fixing, but that they broke some of Wikipedia's most important policies and behavioral guidelines. That's why I think that you need to focus on learning from the beginning, rather than worrying about all of those other articles.  The great thing is, once you understand the policies and guidelines better, it may always be possible for you to go back to those articles in the future.  I'm hoping that by the time your mentorship is done (however long that takes), you'll actually understand what was wrong with the splits, the POV articles, and the stubs, and you'll see why we felt we had to act to remove or merge them.
 * So, what I would like you to do is to 1) start working on either new articles or substantial additions to existing articles (we can certainly discuss which way is the right way to go in each case, and 2) whenever you have what you think is a problem, please ask me first. For example, I could have told you that the Article Rescue Squad actually focuses on saving articles from deletion.  But the Chandigarh articles aren't even going to be deleted (most of them, any way)--they are going to be merged.  That means relevant information will be saved, but just moved to a different article.  So the ARS can't even really help in this case (any more than any other editor can).  Giving you that kind of information is actually what I'm here for.  I want to explain (step by step) everything you need to know to be a great editor.
 * You can bring up questions here or on your talk page. If you do want to email me, the way to do that is to come to my talk page, then look on the very left of your screen.  There should be a list of links, starting from "Main page", to "Contents", etc.  The bottom will probably be "Toolbox".  If you click on that, you'll get another set of links, and in there is the link that says "Email this user".
 * I really, honestly, truly want to help, Mahesh. Once you decide which article you want to work on (new or old), post a new section on your talk page, let me know what sandbox you're working on it in, and I'll take a look and give feedback.  Also, ask any questions you may have.  I know we can work our way through this together.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, alternatively, you could use Special:EmailUser/, where  is the user name of the editor you wish to email (i.e.: Special:EmailUser/Qwyrxian or Special:EmailUser/Ajl772). – AJLtalk 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you Peruvian-Jewish too?
Hi there, could you go and check this at Elen's talk page, I think you are quite right and something should be done. The problem for me is that this user is a prolific contributor of trivial or nonsensical material, so it is often ignored and people come along saying "hey, I have reformatted your category to respect WP:TITLE" without checking that the category should exist in the first place - Category:People_From_Atlin which has a grand total of 450 inhabitants! Atlin, that is, not the category ;-).

Also, it takes a huge amount of time to patrol, propose for deletion etc. (your proposal is still live, my two categories that I CSD'd with Twinkle are gone, baby, gone!). In the meantime, all this nonsense just sits there. I am not seeking to WP:FORUMSHOP or whatever they call it, I just feel that a few people should weigh in and say what they think.

And you're the closest thing I have to a Peruvian-Jewish wiki relative. A Canadian-Scottish-Polish-English person living in Thingummy Street, Camembert Town, Rather Nice Wine Really, France.  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Peruvian-Jewish? Me? not so much, really....I didn't reply before because I was waiting to see if Elen responds.  I know she's quite busy on ArbCom, so I suspect it will take time; plus, I'm not so sure that there's much more for her to say than she already has.  I guess a relevant question is--is anything Neptunekh2 doing productive?  If it is, then we should be more inclined to just deal with the less useful stuff.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See . I hope this will help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Elen, lets see if that helps. I don't actually encounter Neptukekh2 myself, since I'm not a reference/help desk watcher; she mainly pops up on my watchlist when I see her questions on user talk pages I watch.  Hopefully there's a chance at least part of the message gets through.  It was good to hear that some of her work has been valuable. It's always a lot easier to cut people slack when at least part of what they do is helpful.  Heck, that's how some of our best content creators get away with being some of our worst behaving contributors.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If either of you is still watching this, see the bottoms of my talk page: In this case, Neptunekh2 did ask only 1 place (the Help Desk), was told she needs to ask on the article talk page, and then came here. She did also post on one of the article talk pages in question....I don't know what will happen if we just keep working that way: No, you need to ask there, no, we can't answer because you've already been answered, etc.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, well I don't know if you saw the follow-on to the conversation we were having over on Elen's talk page but the other night I went a bit spare after seeing the multiple posts to different help desks, with up to 8 completely unrelated questions, generally concerning trivia,like here, and also the manic category creation of trivial intersections and other ridiculous stuff.
 * Well, Elen very kindly tried to have a word in her ear on her talk page, see here, notably suggesting that she not blank her talk page immediately, which she promptly did! All I know is that this user is very time-consuming and takes up a lot of different editors time and energy with her refusal to take on board the basics of notability, trivia, reliable sources and so on.
 * For the moment, I'm going to go through the cats I listed at Elen's talk page and SD them (obviously not the last one which has 15 people, but Neptunekh2 has placed at least one person from Southern Province into this cat, so it needs checking). Well, that's me done for now :) (sound of steam whistling out of ears).  Captain Screebo Parley! 21:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw them, and just added another note to Elen's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye ;-)  Captain Screebo Parley! 12:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

your opinion
there is a discussion i started about the varna of nairs here. i would appreciate inputs from you. thanks. --CarTick (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re
I compromised and changed it as "violation of WP:NPOV". Hope he will not remove it or roll back by violating WP:NPOV again. --Lvhis (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RRQ
In this case, there is a Political conflic that make this article Absolutly not neutral. you should try this for reading the other point of view (more neutral im my humble opinion) : http://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FR%25C3%25A9seau_de_R%25C3%25A9sistance_du_Qu%25C3%25A9b%25C3%25A9cois Get back to my last message : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R%C3%A9seau_de_R%C3%A9sistance_du_Qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9cois

Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.160.99 (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dog meat
My apologies - was distracted & saw message "section blanking". Denisarona (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * for user Qwyrxian: sorry, I don't see myself retracting from what I believe are my honest assessment of behaviors and weaseling edits I have experienced around Wikipedia. If you believe I have wronged you anywhere in Wikipedia, or erroneously blamed you for some of the covert racism and ethnic or political bias or whatever in these many faulty Wikipedia articles and edits, then please respond to the statements i've made which you deem to be false, and exonerate yourself. You can initiate the steps to block me, but I want to emphasize that I believe you are part of the problem, particularly in the selective east-west divide, possibly willing to find a solution, while i'm part of the solution, creating a problem for people who try to control content within Wikipedia. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what I am doing wrong on edits Polgar/Truong/Sloan etc
Hi - I edited out unsubstantiated accusations from the referenced pages but keep getting my edits undone. I don't want to be a vandal or problem. I do not understand why the unsubstantiated, disparaging information keeps being reposted? The topic is like a tar baby, or more accurately a vendetta being played out on Wikipedia. Help!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellie Dahl (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey
Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE READ: Notice of Reverting of Last Edit; Confirmed Sources for SF Bay Area Anchors
Hey there, your last reverted edit on KNTV was did initially not have sources, although there are three exclusive articles written by Rich Lieberman. The John Kessler part can be read here. Also, the same site also confirmed that not only John Kessler was going to KNTV, but also Janelle Wang as well. . How the scenario plays out can be read here; although you are right that no exact date has been confirmed as of yet (Kessler and Wang scheduled to make their first appearances sometime in August). I will continue to monitor the article and will confirm it later. CHAK 001 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but blogs are never reliable sources. However, as soon as those people actually appear on air or are listed on the stations bio/profile page, then they can be added. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For me, however, I will look carefully if any more sources regardless of type are sufficient enough, even though you may think that many of the blogs are simply insufficient. CHAK 001 (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not my opinion--it's explicitly stated in WP:RS. Please take a look at that policy to understand what Wikipedia requires for sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oromo people
FYI, I think your first revert was OK, as per WP:LISTCRUFT, if not for the reasons you suspected. We've seen similar issues with the articles in Category:Somali clans. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somalia and Category talk:Somali clans (if you're interested). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
There is no consensus because Lvhis and co haven't said anything about the tag being removed after mediation. If you would like there to be consensus for the tag to stay before we start mediation, perhaps you could encourage them to make such a commitment. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I will ask. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian -- Repeating the invitations which are explicit here and here, please consider addressing issues and questions in the diffs posed by John Smith's and by Phoenix7777. Continuing failure to engage directly and meaningfully is not good. --Tenmei (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am very aware of their requests, and now is not the time to answer them. In fact, I'm not the one who should answer them, since I think the title is NPOV. The problem is that you are holding Lvhis and STSC to the wrong standard.  They don't need to prove that the title is POV--rather, they just need to show a good-faith, policy based reason why it may be POV.  They have both done so: STSC argues that since Japan is an involved party, the title is POV, and WP:NPOV says no policy/guideline on the site can override it. Lvhis says that his data (Google hits) shows a pretty overwhelming preference for SI, and that since there is what xe calls a neutral alternative (Pinnacle), there is a very high burden placed on the use of Senkaku.  I hope to show, carefully, and in detail, why those arguments are both wrong, through the use of precedent, site-wide policies & guidelines, and data.  However, absolutely no harm at all is done in allowed the POV-title tag to remain on the article while we go through the effort of discussing those points.  We should not discuss them here, or on the article talk page, because that's why we've entered mediation.  If, for some reason, mediation never starts, then we'll be on our own, but the whole point of mediation is to give us a constructive, structured place/method to talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that User:Tenmei still (after all these months) fails to realize that User:Qwyrxian is exactly on his side on the naming matter and possibly the only one who bothered to use some close-to-scientific method in arguing the anti-name-change position. It's tough to be a Wikipedian some days eh? Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: < User talk:Abstruce >
Dear Qwyrxian, I am thankful to You for Your guidance on My user talk page. I have had a deep look at it, and I assure You that I will follow your suggestion. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nair
I've just put in a request for an academic journal article that I think may be useful for a small but important cite at Nair. However, it could also be very useful for MKY and his sandbox item. I think that he should see it. How would you like to deal with this? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has now been provided by the wonderful GabrielF here at Rsce Exchange. I've downloaded it but not notified him yet. This gives you or MKY a chance to grab it if needed. Let me know either way & I'll do the honours with Gabriel. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot to reply--I did see this, but after I checked, it was already gone. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Got a copy here. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yikes! I am slightly concerned that our friend appears to have enabled Twinkle. Not my problem per se and I only came across it because I was wondering whether there had been any developments regarding the above msgs. I am going to email you. Whether you respond is entirely up to you - I do understand the umpteen reasons why you may choose not to, no worries. However, if you do then I'll send the article over as an attachment tomorrow. A lot of it may be irrelevant to him but there are certainly aspects that could be usefully worked into the draft, I feel. It would also provide a taste of citing something other than news sources, although I accept that in an "English as second language" situation this may be a little too much. - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So, which threads should I look at?
It appears the mediation encompasses just about single issue every occurred. Since there are Mt Everests of philosophical English everywhere, it'd be great if you can tell me what's been going on, which threads are of interest, and what's the general goal (content resolution? lynching of editors?).

It seems someone raised the naming issue again and there's some stuff about Google. Although I still very much disagree with your stance (without reading the latest posts), I think I will give that topic a very wide berth. Let's hope whoever arguing against you would gain the upper hand. :)

By the way, don't take my replies to you in the mediation page too personally. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Technically, there's nothing to read in the mediation, as it isn't actually open yet. I am still of the opinion that the mediation covers only one issue: the "best" name for the articles Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute (and, possibly, the related 2010 Senkaku Islands boat collision incident).  Tenmei is the one who added a bunch more points, most of which I don't understand.  AGK, who was acting for the Mediation Committee (although not our actual mediator) removed the issues as being too long; Tenmei re-added them.  I don't know what the mediator will say; he hasn't actually edited Wikipedia at all since 18 May.  In fact, almost everything on the talk page relates to the additional issues.  Again, as I'm not convinced that those are an actual part of the mediation, I haven't bothered worrying about them.


 * Regarding the article talk page, almost everything of interest lately has been discussions about whether or not to include the "NPOV-title" tag on the article. I don't feel like searching through the whole history, but it's come on and gone off numerous times.  I believe that the current status is that Lvhis and STSC support the tag being there, I and John Smith support the tag staying on during mediation if and only if there is agreement to remove the tag after mediation is complete no matter what the outcome is, Tenmei opposes the tag entirely, I think Phoenix7777 is closer to Tenmei but I'm not sure, and AJL (who was an uninvolved user who actually opened the mediation in the first place) was trying to get a poll started about who supports the tag being on currently eventually got fed up with being overwhelmed and berated and walked away from all assistance.  I'm sure I'm missing many things, and my own biases are blinding me to relevant details, but that's my "off-the-cuff" summary.  I think there may have been some earlier minor edits to the article as well, but nothing that had substantial impact.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! This certainly sounds like home.


 * Oww... the naming issue is not something I want to bother with because that would mean spending time to do boring + unscientific research and futilely trying to explain to others the concept of statistical analysis.


 * The NPOV was there for a while before I took off. I am surprised they are still at it. It's really just a tiny little thing and I don't understand why that merits such rigourous debate. The poll thing that AJL pulled sounds pretty futile because consensus in WP is pretty cheap.


 * Since AJL was berated to the point of leaving, I most certainly hope you at least pulled a WQA on the offending parties (be it STSC or Phoenix or John Smith's - well I didn't check). tsk tsk


 * By the way, what about the Remin Ribao article thing? Is that fixed or stuck in the limbo as everything else?


 * And by the way, what do you plan to do with ArbCom? Goal?
 * --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, the title issue dominates right now. Until we can deal with the very basic issue of what the article should be called, I just can't see getting at anything else.  You were still here the last time we discussed Remin Ribao, I believe.  A WQA would be up to AJL; I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to file any further generic complaints about Tenmei, unless something obviously egregious happened.  I have no plans to do anything with ArbCom; my goal right now is for mediation to work.  The only reason to go to ArbCom would be if there are documented behavioral issues--ArbCom doesn't deal with content 90% of the time.  God willing, having a neutral conversation facilitator, who will help compel users to stay focused on proper conversational interaction, will alleviate any such problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like a game plan, Qwyrxian.


 * The title matter, in my opinion, is very tricky to deal with because the WP recommendation is to use statistical approaches. However, the problem is I can't really envision any active editor here to be able to do it properly (maybe except Benlisquare since he has a physics/computer background). As we've shown earlier, any roster of results can be cooked by tweaking search parameters or acceptance heuristics. While my inclination is that ambiguous results should then lead to a conclusion of ambiguous name usage frequency, you and others are clearly against that, which leads us to a stalemate. There's also a complicating factor where some random user changed the naming guideline to favour your stance, which of course you guys can take advantage (despite the whole flaw of the fact that policy pages can be changed by just about anyone, making the whole system stupid).


 * I didn't know how Remin Ribao turned out actually. I guess it's left at the limbo? Well, maybe you guys should've raised it in the mediation. It's a clear violation of NPOV.


 * It appears Phoenix was the one who got AJL all riled up. I remember posting a WQA about Phoenix some months ago, although none of you wanted to comment on it. You know, it's good etiquette to apply the same moral standards on everyone... instead of just complaining about my behaviour (and being all ultra-angry about "getting an editor not to participate" tsk tsk... although in my case, I was actually innocent despite your claims). You guys can always remedy this oversight by raising or re-raising a WQA.


 * Personally, I think ArbCom's the way to go. But since mediation is the necessary intermediate step, I think it wouldn't hurt to see what comes up.
 * --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn! You do have such unshakable tolerance for Tenmei. Even after all these months of him berating your credibility, credentials, motive, and such, you still acted stoically. :p Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you are wondering, it's not a sabotage. There is a relevant issue involved. Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with vandals on Tamil Kshatriya page
If you are still not aware, the page was occupied by a bunch of editors with their own personal opinions, with Cartik et al citing his personal research on the Christian caste consiousness. I had posted a warning on Sitush's page earlier asking him to stop his vandalism. Thanks. I have been just as civil as was necessary for the situation, as he took the role of a bullying oldie, snooping around me.''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 03:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And you cannot expect a mediator to not know how to get to a page on GBooks. Which was well, whining.''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 03:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you use the word vandal one more time to describe any non-vandals like Cartick or Sitush, I will ask for you to be blocked. That is a personal attack, and not tolerated. You have already been informed of our policy defining what vandalism is, and clearly their edits do not fall under that description. Furthermore, WP:CIVIL is not something you can choose to use when you think appropriate--it applies in every situation, all of the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) And I checked the Gbooks link, and the pages are not there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The pages that they ask for is not relevant to the content that I added. Removing content with valid citation, that is favourable for the subject, IS vandalism. Yeah, you seem to euphemise everything.''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 03:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the policy: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Simply have a valid citation is not enough for content to remain.  Otherwise, by your logic, as soon as information was added with a citation, it could never be removed.  That makes no sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was 'not relevant to the article', which it was when I initially added it and Rajkris removed it. But later as I added the whole thing, it was totally relevant, which was not verified by Sitush, who left a vague summary like 'tangential', which it was not. Later Rajkris reverted his sanding, after he saw the whole content. So, the reason was NOT apparent by examination of the content itself, a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content was not provided. So it was full blooded vandalism. And one cannot remove cited content just like this to slight the page to their own personal version ''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 03:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was enough to show that this was not vandal removal. Vandalism removal is only when someone comes to an established article, and rips out random chunks with no edit summary whatsoever, or a summary that says something like "This sucks". Furthermore, even if you were somehow confused at the very beginning that this may have been vandalism, the subsequent massive talk page discussion is sufficient to show that it was not vandalism. By definition, if someone is providing specific, clear rationales for removal (even if you disagree, and even if that person later turns out to be wrong), then that removal is not vandalism; therefore, once that discussion begun, you should have immediately ceased using the term. Again, it may well be that Sitush and Rajkris are wrong, and your edits should be left in, but that will now come as the result of a consensus discussion on the article talk page.  I recommend reading, Not everyone who disagrees with you is a vandal. Note that while that essay is not a policy or guideline, it was written by one of the more respected and longer serving admins on Wikipedia, who has a lot of experience working with users in ethnic, national, and other highly charged disputes. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, Rajkris made a mistake in the beginning and he later made it up for that on the talk page. The edit summary here was very similar to 'this sucks'. You cannot take everything in your own context. There was only an ill informed threatening on my talk page that I would be blocked if I contribute to that page as it is going to be deleted and that Sitush is an experienced guy. Also, there were quite a number of other vandal attacks on this page, before this reversion of my edit, which must have made Rajkris assume me otherwise in the beginning. It was me who posted on the article talk page after he repeated that after a vandalism warning in his talkpage, which I left rightfully. ''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just drop the issue, okay? I'm not going to request any action taken as long as you stop calling Sitush's edits vandalism.  I still think you need to re-read the policy, because if you keep using the term inappropriately, you'll get in trouble in the future; but that's about your future, not about here and now. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't deny my claims that Sitush's actions meet the vandalism criteria, which they do as ^. Thanks.''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 04:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, if you won't stop the personal attacks, I guess I have to ask that you be blocked. Why?  Why not drop it and get back to editing?  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any personal attacks, unlike Sitush who had posted threatening messages on my talkpage and also posting about my previous edits on the article talk page, WHICH amount to personal attacks. I have only made accusations against him for his vandalism. I don't think they would anytime qualify as persoanal threats to get me blocked. ''' Freewheeler, MANORATHAN 04:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)