User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 19

WP:AIV
got your message, thanks for letting me know --ChristianandJericho (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble at Shivaji; are you uninvolved?
Greetings Q: I've been doing some subtle cleanup at Shivaji, but at some point someone overreacted to earlier questioning of the uniformity of the "Shivaji was a Rajput" narrative. Someone dumped a huge 4,000ish block of text right into the middle of other unrelated paragraphs with no clear transition. The inserted block (aside from being apropos of little where it sits) is a way undue block of "and here's why it's totally obvious he was a Rajput" arguments, vice any attempt at a concise definition. Plus it goes back to 1817 and further, as opposed to simply quoting whatever modern academics describe the debate. I've tried clearly explaining why this is inappropriate on Talk, and made a new section which concisely explains that it's a debated issue (and solicited best sourcing), but I keep getting reverted and am at 3RR. Worse, I'm getting some rather piercing tone on Talk, including nationalist slogans and accusations that I have an "agenda". As an aside, I'm still quite curious as to why an Anglo American would give a "flying Philadelphia handshake" as to who Shivaji comes from... In any case, would you mind taking a squint, or would you prefer I raise it at some formal arbitration board? Here's the diffs:. Thanks for any help or suggestions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the article's talk page and the talk page of the user whose been doing most of the reverting. If you could answer my question there, we can see what develops...Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My pictures
I'm leaving wikipedia so I'm just putting them all up for speedy deletion by my request so pleas just delete them. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm literally sick of trying to help contribute on here cause every time I'm on here there's drama. I've gotten attacked several times on here by user for following Wikipedia standards and now this I can't deal with it anymore and I just want out of here. So please just delete them. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another admin who handles files will delete them. I'm sorry that you feel upset; Wikipedia does have rules that need to be followed, even though they're difficult at times.  If you have a change of heart in a few days, please do come back, and if you ever need help, let me know.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay all I did was remove one deletion and put with my own saying that I'm requesting the be deleted. I'd rather then be deleted that way then on terms of copyright infringement especially when I don't feel my own personal collection is. But I may return. I just got a lot going on outside of Wikipedia and I come on here to contribute to this and if you check the Sparks Fly page on the history you can see that I've been personally attacked on their several times. I don't come on here to deal or drama or anything else. I've made quite a few friends on here and I'd rather not leave them. JamesAlan1986 *talk 11:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraulein
It is still used in common speech. How do I know? I have been to Germany and Austria many times. How do you expect anyone to find a source for how often a common word is used? ...A leftist SPD minister got it into their head that it was not 'correct' in the 70's, at the start of the PC craze that swept through the more absurd politicians in the 70s/80s/90s. I had a look at the history page of the article and see that you have really been pushing this "no one uses it anywhere, ever" line for quite some time. I KNOW it is used in everyday speech as I have heard it with my own ears many times, my German friend just now told me it is "nice to hear, but is seen as a little old-fashioned and out of date". But as it means so much to you, I will not argue and you can have it your way. I don't see it as important enough to argue. I merely thought I would add what everyone knows anyway, that it is still in use, regardless of a "ban". What would they do? Arrest folk for saying it? Obviously not.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately, when we have multiple sources that say one thing (note, for example, the dictionaries that state that the word is no longer appropriate), then we have no choice but to go with that. I believe you when you say it's commonly still used, but without sources, you'd basically be replacing sourced information with unsourced, which we just can't do.  If it is, in fact, commonly used, there actually will be sources--socio-linguists should write about it, other dictionary manufacturers should comment about it, there would probably be op-ed pieces (which might or might not count as reliable), and, of course, we would see it in use in major publishers.   Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamil kshatriya
As you wish. But i will copy it & let you arrange it because just don't have time to follow your advises.Rajkris (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Chop suey
Thanks for your intervention! --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Help
Is there anyway to get my account blocked by request? I don't want anything more to do with Wikipedia for at least a month just to get away from the drama. Please if there's anything you can do please do it. I gotta get away from here for awhile or at least till I get things in my life under control. JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please....JamesAlan1986 *talk 12:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can do that. However, before I do that, I just need to make sure you understand the conditions. First, if you "can't resist" and sock puppet to edit, it will be treated as normal sock puppetry, and thus will result in an "actual" block for disruption. Additionally, if you change your mind in 2 weeks, and request an unblock, you will likely not be able to get a self-requested block again.  So, are you sure that you want a block, and, are you sure you want it to be for one month?  If you do, I'll block you, and I will make it clear in the block log and on your page that this is entirely self-requested, and is not to reflect badly on you in any way.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there might be a better way. You could also follow the instructions here to enforce a wikibreak.  Doing this, you'll automatically be logged out any time you try to log in until the time you specify.  Or, if you like, I or Qwyrxian can edit it into your .js page for you (if you tell us which skin you're using; the default is Vector these days).  The wikibreak enforcer avoids the stickiness that self-requested blocks impose and should be about as effective.  Cheers, both of you.   lifebaka ++ 04:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bah, didn't check the dates on this. My advice to James might've been a bit late (and he seems to have found and misapplied the wikibreak enforcer anyway), but you still might want to direct users to this in the future, if blocking them could be problematic.  Cheers.   lifebaka ++ 04:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly uncited/unlinked list of villages
If this were the MKY scenario then the list at List_of_villages_in_Jayal_Tehsil would be deleted. But it is not MKY, so how best do I approach it? I could cut it back to just the three linked villages, on the basis that the remainder fail WP:V etc but I know that villages are usually though to be inherently notable. Does such notability apply to lists of the things? I don't fancy trawling through various sources in an attempt to find co-ords etc for a list this long. - Sitush (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk to the article creator and explain that it would really help if we had a source for those villages, possibly a census document might exist (don't recall if they go down to that level). I just tried searching myself, and I can't find anything reliable. However, one thing that does inspire a little bit of confidence is that Jatland lists a fair number of these at .  Obviously, open wiki, unreliable source, but at least it makes me believe the list isn't entirely fiction.
 * If I got no response, I'd throw an unreferenced tag on it, ask for input at the India-pages noticeboard, and then leave it for no less than 2 months. As you say, this isn't MYK--in his case we had an editor adamantly refuse to help fight every little detail, and in general, not act in good faith.  Thus, his entire lists were suspect.  Here, I don't see that...yet.   So no real harm comes from the list hanging around, hoping for a ref, at least for a while.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sound. I've now found three more such lists and expect others to turn up. Indeed, I am going through articles removing jatland.com citations (unreliable, as you say) and that is how these are turning up. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much joy! Having worked through all 122 articles relating to the dodgy jatland.com isue, it was only the three additional lists:
 * List_of_villages_in_Degana_Tehsil
 * List_of_villages_in_Ladnu_Tehsil
 * List_of_villages_in_Nawa_Tehsil
 * I have left a note on the creator's page and shall leave it for a while because they are contributing only occasionally at present. Your guidance is appreciated: the last thing I need is another confrontation. You may find this difficult to believe, but I do think that I am improving ... but have a long way to go yet.
 * I queried at User_talk:Reaper Eternal as to whether jatland.com should be filtered and has suggested that I propose something at the spam blocklist forum. Something else for me to have a think about, mainly because the usage is not really spam but lack of policy appreciation. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:BLACKLIST, though it is titled the "Spam blacklist" doesn't actually state that it is only for spam....but if you read the page, you can see how extremely cautious it is in recommending things be added. The reason why jatland might possibly qualify is that there is literally no legitimate use for any link to Jatland anywhere on Wikipedia, unless at some point in the future we decide the wiki itself is notable and thus we should create Jatland; but there's a way to make a special exception for individual pages.  Maybe what might work is to wait a few weeks, and then run another check to see how many jatland links show up, and, who specifically is adding them (just one or two users? mostly new/non-confirmed users? etc.).  If that 122 is just what has accumulated over several years, it's likely that simple maintenance is the way to handle the problem.  One concern for me with the spam blacklist is that a new user who legitimately doesn't understand WP:RS/WP:EL isn't really given clear guidance if the blacklist hits them.  XLinkBot is a little better in some ways, because it gives a fuller explanation.  If the number is relatively low (say, only a few additions a week), an edit filter might be even the best--all that would do is keep a record everytime someone tries to add it, then it would be up to one of us to check the filter every so often and go purge the articles of the problem link; this would give us the chance to leave personalized notes to those who've contributed it.  But if it's mostly anon editors, or if it's coming much more rapidly, then we should strongly consider an automatic solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yadav lead
Excellent! I am on record as being useless at creating useful leads, and it is for reasons that I really do not understand (how my brain is wired, presumably). However, I do know a good one when I see it. Yours is one of those based on the current article content. - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! One of the problems I often have on Wikipedia is that, as an academic in a "softer" field (rhetoric/composition studies), I'm actually used to drawing conclusions and synthesizing information naturally.  In the body of an article, of course, this can be okay but can easily fall afoul of WP:OR.  For a lead, though, it really is about giving the whole article a good read through and then picking out what is most important. Your bodies are so well written it's a lot easier to pick out the key info and summarize it; if you ever have situations on other articles where you've done a major body revision but don't know what to do with the lead, call me in and I'll be happy to give it a rewrite.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a sock
I wasnt blocked, I was a suspected sock, which I am not, I have no idea who the other user was, u please check the hyderabad article edit history, revision history and discussion page. I was new to wikipedia (Eeenadu (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).

Hiii
I did not dominate hyderabad article, which attempt of mine shows I am into dominating the article, please check hyderabad discussion page and look at the way I came to Consensus with other aggressive user omer123hussain, may be he is a sock puppet. (Eeenadu (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).

hii
Yes I am not dragonboosetr for sure, it was user omer123hussain, demanded his own way, not me u check his approach towards fellow editors and speak, I was the one who insisted him not to be disruptive in his edits the revision history page and discussion page of Hyderabad article. I think u should take ur case back. further, I am into editing with neutral statements, you check my other edits and edit summaries in other articles. You also check with user omer123hussain. edit habits and then use judgement. (Eeenadu (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).

ur free

 * to undo my edits, but the edit I am undid now was initially not accepted by me initially
 * the edits of mikewazowski I undid was not my view, my view initially was to retain raj bhavan road
 * but after going through consensus, I replaced images as per consensus with omer123hussain

(Eeenadu (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)).

Need your advice.
Kindly look into | Economy section images quantity, which are forcibly inserted in the section, beyond that the editor is un necessarily insisting to maintain that size of images, please see his arguments | here, | here and | here. I need your advice.


 * Secondly, I believe that this talk is a sock puppet of recently blocked User:Dragonbooster4, whose tone and insisting attitude for adding image is similar. And by chance if he is hot a sock puppet then he should first learn the articles styles and do's and dont's then he/she may approach for editing. Though without reading the archived discussions on the article talk page, he is insisting to add the images, were as previously on the talk page it came to consensus among the editors that they shall not add more than 1 or 2 images per section and as a new user he need to read and implement previous consensus.


 * though, even after advising, this editor is not refraining from destructive activities and unnecessary involving others in edit war. Kindly advice, regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a sockpuppet investigation on Eeeanadu; I'll be shocked if it's not the same person; note that this person has been socking for a long time, and has had several dozen sockpuppets (plus sometimes edits as an IP). Assuming I'm right, he'll be blocked; at that point, just roll back all of the edits.  Then, if he comes back (as he probably will), we'll rinse and repeat.  If I'm wrong, then I'll help deal with the issue directly.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response, Well, you might have noticed that, the blocked sock had repeatedly accused me as disruptive and aggressive user. was my approach to you regarding this issue is aggressive? rather than involving in edit war. if I had not brought the issue upto you he might have spoiled the article again. the hardwork and lot of researched information would have been again spoiled. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't consider anything that sock says as relevant or accurate. It is abundantly clear that xe simply wants to control articles and make them read only the way xe wants them to read. If you spot another new editor who seems similar (pay close attention to the way they talk on the talk page or in edit summaries), let me know and I'll re-open the SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste groups of India
See the recent edit history of Reddy ... Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * looks like the beginnings of an edit war to me. Since you've noticed the problem, the best thing to do is to go to the article's talk page and discuss it.  No one has actually gotten up to 3RR, much less crossed it yet, so it's alright on that regard (although the random edit by a random IP in the middle does worry me).  I'll put the article on my watch list and see if it gets worth.  But one thing worth remembering is that, even if you're sure you are right, rather than edit war to keep the article the way you want it, go to talk and discuss the issue; or, at a bare minimum, discuss it at the same time as you make your 1st or 2nd revert.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

tp comment
thanks for the opportunity--I've been meaning to say this.  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates
I meant to put it on the user page -- Christian and Jericho 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Finale (Seinfeld episode).
I thought of asking your expert opinion. Is it good having qoutes even incidental ones or would it be better to put it in Wikiquote (if that's the name?). The reason I find it so controversial is the line Elaine says "I've always..." that also appears on Elaine Benes article and Jerry Seinfeld (character) article. People, believe it or not, did not web reference the script that has it. For some reason the "L" in "I've always l..." is hard to reconcile. Also the guy that has trouble with ownership just accept "I've always l..." without any second thoughts. I did my research and felt it would be better to take it out altogether because it's not working as the story intended.

That's too much to swallow. Anyway, if I'm doing like an article for example storytelling, is it better not to have the "quotes" as part of the article or is there a way to put in quotes without any trouble. Any advice would be good advice and since your a good editor, it will help with my learning experience. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean quotes from the show, or from independent sources? If you mean the former, they don't belong here except in extremely special cases; for example, a famous catch-phrase of a character could be included (though probably on the character page, if there is one).  If you mean the latter, then yes, we can include it, although it's always an editorial decision whether to use a direct quote or just a paraphrase/summary.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku
Please consider what I have written here at "Vested toxic warriors". Perhaps you will want to comment? --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator NewYorkBrad has explicitly stated that they do not need any more information from us, so no, I do not wish to comment any more on the arbitration evidence or proceedings, unless they specifically ask us to. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned a talk page msg of yours at ANI
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Misessus Block
While this is not a normal block appeal procedure, I ask that you lift or modify the block on Misessus. I've deleted his comment on the AS talk page and put in my 2 ¥ on his talk page. (Also, I've deleted another user's personal comments IAW WP:TPOC). These Economics editors are like a herd of cats, but I enjoy my parlay with them. If you can, please help me out. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I left a message at User Talk:Misessus. That way it can be seen by Misessus, along with any other admins who want to act on the case as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And to see how worked up these discussions can really get, see Fear the Boom and Bust. --S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all unsurprisingly, Misessus blanked the block notice and followup message, and simply left his declaration of how terrible Wikipedia is. I'm not going to respond, as there's no reason to inflame the situation. Misessus is welcome to that opinion (although, in my opinion, it's pure sour grapes because the article doesn't reflect his belief that the Austrian School is not only the "best" economic school, but, in fact, the only one with any validity and everyone who has any degree of intelligence already knows that).  However, Misessus is not welcome to also attempt to edit Wikipedia while holding such a hostile opinion to our fundamental project goals.  I sincerely hope that this time xe will actually retire, rather than forcing us to go through incremental blocking and banning.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One page
Thank you so much for turning the page to protected. It was so tiring to undo vandalism and re-edit content of it all the time. :) --Meryam90 (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. RFPP has been a bit backed up the last few days, wish it was getting taken care of faster. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfArb/Senkaku
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku is all about...."] It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question. A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. --Tenmei (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done
I think someone should thank you being so vigilant at the Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture page. They just keep trying and trying! I'm watching too so don't feel it is all on you. Regards PurpleHeartEditor   (talk)  02:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now that the AfD is finished, we may want to even consider requesting indefinite semi-protection.  Lots of lists like this, that have vague inclusion criteria, are semi-protected indefinitely simply because new users don't understand that we are different from TVTropes (or other similar sites), and that we only want verified entries, even in cases where it seems "obvious".  I can make a request if the problems don't taper off (I'm too involved to take an admin action on the article myself, now). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I think I might make the request myself as yet another IP editor tried with Cthulhu this morning. Regards PurpleHeartEditor   (talk)  00:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. I made few corrections for the sources of Hyderabad, India article, hope you might have noticed those.Need your advice for further actions. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A question for you
Regarding the BRD-breaking dispute, do you remember I have contested Lvhis' block, wrote any lies about people, or tried to edit-war? I don't recall ever doing that, but my memory can be faulty. Here's the a thread where that allegation was raised by some person. Since you are an involved party, your opinion on this may be valuable. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot conceive of any answer I could give you that would help you. My (now deleted) description of the timeline of events regarding Tenmei's BRD breaking is fundamentally different from yours; I leave it up to you (and Arbcom) what is causing that difference.  Also, using a simple page search, I can't find any place where you are accused of lying (I searched the Evidence, Workshop, and main case pages along with their assorted talk pages, searching for the terms " lies" and " lie " and " lied" and "lying", and the only instead where I find that word being used is when you accuse others of lying.  I also re-read the specific thread you linked to, and, while Magog accuses you of wikilawyering, trolling, indirect personal attacks, xe never accuses you of lying or edit-warring.  In his subpage, Magog never accuses you of contesting Lvhis's block. So, not sure what you're complaining about, unless some other term was used that I can't find.  I also don't recall anyone accusing you of edit-warring in the Arb Case pages either, and don't see anything.  So, maybe your faulty memory isn't of the events from a month ago, but of what you think people are accusing you of at the arbitration case. 01:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose my memory is faulty indeed. Anyway... I get where you stand and your response is not a surprise. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I did miss that paranthetical. Apologies. We'll see in the end what Arbcom thinks of the mess; debating it amongst ourselves is hardly likely to accomplish anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know... we are such a messy bunch to deal with ;-) Just wait till someone to quote this as a passive-aggressive smiley  --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that: These kinds of debates can be helpful in revealing the motivations of involved parties and the strength of their justifications, although I try not to overdo it. Well, at least I learned that some people have been treating imagined acts of other people as truth. That'd at least convince myself that I am not really being unfair with the direction I am taking. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know... we are such a messy bunch to deal with ;-) Just wait till someone to quote this as a passive-aggressive smiley  --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add that: These kinds of debates can be helpful in revealing the motivations of involved parties and the strength of their justifications, although I try not to overdo it. Well, at least I learned that some people have been treating imagined acts of other people as truth. That'd at least convince myself that I am not really being unfair with the direction I am taking. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to change parts of "Analysis of Evidence" over the next few days. If you would like to modify your responses, please feel free. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the point about autism, since your explanation seems to add up. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd prefer you didn't, but I guess I'll just have to go in and re-explain what you did, given that it's a great example of your poor behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one is a great example again? Autism? If so, I'd encourage you add a new section and explain why it is a great example of poor behaviour. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the fact that you cited Feezo's RfA support and not mine. As far as I know, I gave you some pretty glowing reviews! :-( --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I picked Feezo's comment because he's both "involved" and "neutral", but can't (as far as I know) actually "speak" in the Arbitration in any significant way degree; I felt it provided a better "counter" to STSC than any random praise (since it's clearly related), or even than praise from you or Tenmei, since STSC is in part alleging some bizarre plot regarding the differential between how I treated his comments and yours/Tenmei's/Lvhis's. Of course, if you still think you were right in your !vote (i.e., if you still think I deserve adminship despite our disagreements), you're certainly welcome to raise them as a defense against STSC's calls to have me de-sysopped. It's probably not really all that important, though, since I sincerely doubt that will actually be something ArbCom considers, but one never knows.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't really seriously considered the option of proposing a de-sysop for anyone other than Magog, since admins are as difficult to fire as tenured employees. However, I don't think STSC's allegations about you are bizarre. I've already shown how you've given a free pass to just about everyone who was on the same side on the conflict as you (except for Tenmei). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we have a disagreement about the concept of OR being in a discussion, can you help us? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You weren't being very insightful there. I am disappointed. :/ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My reasons for not being insightful, though, were clearly explained. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Construing that as a conspiracy is not very nice. It was just a simple request of commentary. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Mallars / Devendra Kula Vellalar
why are so keen in deleting all the stuffs. The notable names given are true to my knowledge & the whole community knows who are they. And should better know that these notable peoples have done so much for the community. There are so many reference to prove that they are from Mallar community only. We also don't have any interest in including other people in our list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundarapandian1978 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are references, then they can be included. If there are no references, then they cannot.  It's that simple.  As lkong as you add a source, you may include them.  My only concern is that information in Wikipedia be verified, especially information about living people. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Solar cell panel manufacturing controversy
Fine. Move them where they go: Solar cell manufacturing controversies Solar panel manufacturing controversies. Include this one:
 * Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006 for four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. They that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies.

--Pawyilee (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC) --editedPawyilee (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm...that may belong in the article somewhere...but why is that a controversy? 90% reduction in pollutants for solar cells seems like a good thing.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld article again.
I'm very sorry for what I did. I've gone too far for now and I promise I won't do it again. As for the Jacopo/Jacobo, I forgotten how to do the DVD reference so sorry about that. I'll take a few days to clear myself up. I remembered the last time I went into the edit war when I first signed up and didn't know what to expect because I do have difficulty keeping my cool. This is a close second so I'll restrain myself for now. If you personally want the minor character list to stay the way it is, I won't object but I hope Hearfourwesique will come to the table to resolve this issue if I want to put my mind at ease. As long as this issue is not left unresolved he shouldn't keep me waiting forever at least for a message to come.

Sorry I got you involved in this. I better cool down before it gets anymore worse ok? Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you won't work with Hearfourwesique, then you have to walk away from the article, permanently. No one is allowed to just say "I want to work on this article, but I refuse to collaborate with that other major contributor".  So, what you should do is exactly what you've suggested: walk away from Wikipedia a few days.  Come back rested and cool.  Then we can finish hashing out the criteria for what characters should be included in the list.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pashtun People.
The edit I made was totally legit. It is verifiable and referenced from a reliable source. A select few people see a problem with it because of the sensitive nature of some, but like I said everything is verifiable. Nothing I wrote was even the slightest bit biased. Everything was from a neutral point of view straight from the research. Other editors even contributed by cleaning up the citing and making the statements even more neutral so as not to offend. There just seems to be a select few people that don't want others to know the truth about certain cultural practices. I live in the region and can attest to it, but I don't need to because everything I have mentioned is backed up by researched and is cited and referenced. My edit just keeps getting reverted because someone else doesn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.11.3 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on whether or not the edit is reasonable. I know it wasn't vandalism, and that your edit was made in good faith, and that you included at least something that may be a valid reference (again, I didn't look into the details), so there was nothing inherently wrong with your addition. But I also know that two different people disagreed with you, so it's now time for you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you can't gain consensus yourself on the talk page, you can take the process through dispute resolution.   There are ways to ask for additional opinions, noticeboards that can help determine issues of neutrality and reliable sourcing, etc.  If you need help with any of that, I will provide it. What you cannot do is simply try to force the info in yourself.  If you do that, you'll end up blocked (or, if your IP is dynamic, the page will be semi-protected), and that doesn't get you anywhere.  Take it to talk, discuss it, and see what happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Other people contributed to my original edit. Then some random person comes along and reverts it. It's the same guy that keeps doing it.


 * Two different people undid it. Even if there are others supporting, that just makes it worse--then we're up to a big huge edit war.  Policy says that any time you have a bunch of people disagreeing, you need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.  That's all I'm suggesting--again, I have no opinion about whether your edit is right or wrong (and, even if I did, that wouldn't change anything, because admins don't decide content).  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I provided more sources on the articles talk page. It will be interesting to see these guys try to disprove factual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.11.3 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the nuisance contributor
Hi Qwyrxian, many thanks for blocking the nuisance contributor, 82.234.207.120. About time something was done about complete time-wasting on the ref desk. Advise/ encourage even stronger responses in future, It&#39;s been emotional (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I strongly suspect the user is not going away (given how long they've been at it), and 1 week is more likely to fuel their trolling desires than make it stop, so let me know if it restarts.  I don't want to add the Reference desk to my watch list just to watch for this one person, so I'll rely on regulars to keep me informed (I will watchlist his talk page, though). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste Articles
You be cool brah. Caste articles be messy. Wish u luck. U seem to be neutral. Good wishes to ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FilmCrave For Un Deletion
Hello - I added additional reliable sources to the FilmCrave entry. You mentioned in your weak delete that if it had just one more reliable source that you would vote to save it. Can you tract your weak delete vote? Heartiscontentious (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Message
17:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond
I realise IMBD or blogs for that matter are not considered reliable, but as you said IMBD is used for release dates which clearly shows that the sex tape was released in 2006, so instead of removing the entire section, could it not be changed in the meantime to simply "In 2006, Diamond released his own Sex tape "Screeched - Save by the smell" ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. That particular IMDB entry smacks of very poor quality, to the point where I don't even trust the information in any way; BLP requires stricter care of source quality than other info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found a news article from the nz herald that is brief but nonetheless not a blog source, will update it, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add it to the talk page first. BLP is one of our most critical policies, and it essentially stands as an exception to the normal idea of "Be bold and change the article first, then see what other's think."  Real damage can be done to living people if we don't get it right, so let's take this slow. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Message
00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB
I would like to immediately start posting at the students' talks, the following: User:Anna Frodesiak/Brown sandbox, one after another, a few hours apart each. Can you help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, you mean, for example, add "SIGN YOUR NAME" to all of the people's talk pages. Then, a few hours later, add the "INDENT YOUR POST" notice, and so on?   I can do that.  I have to do it by hand because, well, I don't understand AWB.  But copying and pasting is pretty fast for me. Let me know when you want me to start and which names to take. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. Maybe an hour apart for the first two. Then two hours apart. The order is now set in the sandbox:


 * 1. HAPPY HELP
 * 2. Protect Your Article
 * 3. Use Spaces
 * 4. Your Name
 * 5. Indent


 * I will give it a final proof. ou too please. :) Sorry about the no AWB. Why don't we split the task? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I took a look at AWB recently. Geez, that tool has the potential to be accidentally misused in a big way. I think that I will steer well clear of it despite my programming background. OTOH, in the right hands it is clearly very, very useful. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I have signed, no need to notify me ;)


 * I loved AWB. I can actually use it, but it crashes every two minutes because of the G firewall. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: are you intentionally using "International English" (i.e., English which is not "technically" correct from a formal, Standard Written English, American/UK perspective)? There are places where it seems that you are; i.e., keeping the English "lighter" and not as "strict" to make it easier for your target audience.  Or do you want this in full SWE?  For example, in the the second box, point five says "Make your article style like other articles".  Style isn't actually a verb that can be used that way; however, I think using that way is perfectly acceptable here because your readers will understand what you mean better than if you write "Make your article conform to the style of other articles" or "Make the style of your article match that of other articles."  I'm beginning to realize that I'm a rogue ESL teacher, because I actually think there's value in using "International English" rather than using "American/UK English", particularly in an Asian context.  Most teachers I know (and many EFL learners) feel that's treating the students like they can't understand "real" English (which I don't believe in anymore).  Am I even making sense?  I feel off today, somehow.... 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that is true. But, we just want to get the message across in the fewest possible words. If the text is too long, the students will float up to the ceiling. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I will try to run a final proof, but there's a chance I'm going to get called away to work in the next few minutes. If so, I'll likely be back in 30-90 minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've hit everything I saw. In the future, we may want to consider a special "seminar" on copyvio/close paraphrasing.  Ilona Leki, in her book Understanding ESL Writers talks about how ESL teachers consistently talk about problems in school with Chinese and some other Asian ESL learners simply don't get what we (westerners) mean by plagiarism.  I happen to have it on my desk right now...She says, "In some places in the world, students are encouraged to learn/memorize the writings of the learned of antiquity and to use those, not their own thoughts, in their writing.  For these students, originality in the sense that we use the term may seem immodest and presumptuous....sometimes students use other authors' texts because they admire the way they are written and feel that changing them would imply that they are trying to improve upon them."  Of Chinese writers, she specifically says, "The difference between Western rhetoric's emphasis on individuality and originality and an emphasis on communality of wisdom and knowledge may account for the great concern in the English tradition about plagiarism, a concern not at all shared in cultures whose rhetorical tradition specifically de-emphasizes individuality."  She even sites an example (of Malaysian students, but I believe the idea applies well to China, particularly with its Confucian traditions) who thought they understood plagiarism, but didn't understand why their teachers were upset that they had memorized, word-for-word, exactly what a textbook said and repeated it back during an examination.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In re Jan Lokpal bill
On a related article, I started an overelaborate usage review to justify a British English tag -- and then I learned that there's an Indian English template. I haven't checked this article, but recently active related articles are in Indian English. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten unblock request
User talk:Ehsonsaeed has been on hold and unresolved for almost a month. Can you followup on that? Thanks! -- Jayron  32  04:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Son of a gun....I have unblocked now. Thank you for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference removal
We are still getting sudden WP:RS reference removal on Eternal Life, despite previous warnings. I do not want to start reverting, but we can not have WP:RS references (with links within) removed at will as such. What should be done? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Easy enough--Alan347 is blocked for 31 hours, and I reverted the edits. We'll see what happens tomorrow once the block is up. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to strike Shudra sentence for time being due to single-source
Oi Q, we have a few more uninvolved but WP:INDIA-savvy folks weighing in at Lodhi. We had some wiggle on a few topics (relevance of varna overall), but we have some consensus that the current primary Shudra cite lacks sufficient detail to nuance it, and is not strong enough for a categorical statement. We have full consensus to remove it from the lede, and maybe 5/6 agreement to remove entirely (Zuggernaut was okay with keeping it at a lower weighting). If that meets your standards for fixing the Wrong Version, here's the chat: Talk:Lodhi. On a separate issue, I think MW is still concerned about questioning the Lodhi's Rajput status (which I assert is vital to the article, as contested Rajput claims are a common angle in caste uplift), so no consensus to change there yet, and we'll all have to approach it cautiously once the block lifts.

As an admin, what course of action do you advise if someone immediately deletes "the Lodhis claim to be Rajputs but this is contested" as soon as the block lifts? Do you advise we not revert, but take it to content dispute instead? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just realized I didn't handle the second point (you can see that I've made the consensus edit at Lodhi). As for the potential problem...hmmm...if the revert is by one of the regular participants, leave it and tell them directly on talk (maybe both article and user), to self-revert, given the fact that the article was just protected for edit warring. If it's some random "new" party (or an IP) revert it once and tell them to go to the talk page. One thing that an admin can do is semi-protect the article as a way to prevent people from intentionally or inadvertently editing as an IP rather than their normal account, and to stop "new" people from going against consensus. I've already decided that I won't be the one to make any more protections, but I can raise it at RFPP (or, you can do it directly).  Doing so might result in the article being full protected again, but that's not such a terrible thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edward.Didier
Please see my response about the issue at the ANI thread. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your note
Yes, I've been familiar with this page since pretty much since my earliest days. I think you were trying to diffuse the situation at ANI regarding an Indian editor (User:Amartya ray2001, if I remember right). At present I edit only articles on current affairs like Anna Hazare, Jan Lokpal Bill and living communities. I admire the effort you put in to understand both sides of the various disputes. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I forgot all about that issue with Armartya ray2001 (I had to go look it up an xyr talk page). Fall of last year feels like a thousand years ago in Wiki-time.... Thank you for your positive words. 04:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nando's
Hi again, I have just had another thought after looking over the country sections on the Nando's page (which are wildly inaccurate in places). Many of them cite news articles or provide no citation whatsoever. How are we to know that the information on these news articles is any more trustworthy than the information on Rate Your Nando's international pages (which I can personally vouch for)? This ban on Rate Your Nando's links is now quite badly degrading the quality of the Nando's wikipedia article, especially with regard to uncited comments, which are clearly just based on people's personal statistics (i.e. counting the number of branches they are aware of). I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Many thanks Jc sed8d (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the correct solution would be to first tag all of the uncited information with or  to those parts that are unsourced, and, if no one provides a source in the next few weeks, remove all of the unsourced info, especially if you think it may be inaccurate. We would rather have less information that is accurate than more unsourced, potentially inaccurate.  Nothing, though, can make Rate Your Nando's a reliable source.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll go through putting the citation needed points in. One of my points was what makes me a less reliable source than a news website with a poorly researched article? In the same way the people who write those articles are journalists, I am effectively a specialist Nando's journalist - so I fail to see how that makes the data I have gathered less reliable. I completely understand that citing reviews is wrong since they are opinion based, but citing facts such as number of branches in a country seems reasonable. Thanks Jc sed8d (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) Wikipedia prefers sources like newspaper articles, magazines, books, and official newspaper web sites because these all have some sort of official fact checking. For example a book has one or more writers but it also has an editor checking it over and a press that is supporting it. I agree with Qwyrxian's suggestion of citation needed tags, but you could do a couple other things too. You could check the news articles that are cited to see if they really do back up what the article says. You could look for more news sources that we can use. The first place to look would be online. Then you could ask your local library how to search for articles and news stories aboput Nando's.


 * Since you operate a website about Nando's you could even use it to help your search. Just add a section about Nando's in the news and ask people worldwide to post when Nando's gets newspaper or magazine coverage in their area. You could ask them to include the name of the newspaper, date, and headline with maybe a pic of them holding it. For Nando fans that would just be part of the fun of your website but for you it might lead to improvement of the Wikipedia article. Best of luck to you.Cloveapple (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It Wasn't Vandalism, It Was Writers Block
I tend to get writer's block at times and I kept typing ref name improperly. I misspelled it as ref namae and ref namee. No vandalism, just writer's block.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that after I looked a second time; sorry. I've self-reverted and removed the warning from your talk page.  Apologies!! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
I didn't want to clutter up I Jethrobot's user page. Yes, I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a problem, and that he should be banned. I let him get to me once, since then I've been watching his actions. He consistently makes personal attacks, and then if someone like myself loses their temper, he counts that as a win. We don't need editors who act like that here. A read on his comments, and what he has posted on the talk pages of some of the people involved is disturbing to say the least. He/She/It comes across as having some serious issues, at least to this layman. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then, like I said, build a formal case against xyr. Since it sounds like this is some sort of far-reaching, complex case, it's probably best suited for WP:RFC/U, which is just like a "Request for Comment" on an article, but on a user instead.  It invites any editor to comment on the issue, and provides a bit of structure that you wouldn't get at ANI (which is best suited for things that need immediate attention).  The only "drawback" is that RfC/U cannot actually result in any formal sanctions (block, etc.); however, if you somehow get a very strong mandate there, the results can be taken elsewhere.
 * The main thing I wanted you to understand at I Jethrobot's page is that I did not block you because of anything HW said or didn't say. I blocked you because you made multiple threats against other editors and were, in general disruptive. So I don't recommend using that block as any sort of evidence against HW.  Furthermore, making random claims that someone should be blocked, without providing any evidence, can also be considered a threat/disruption, and could easily result in you being blocked again.  Making a formal request against HW with evidence, like an RFCU or ANI case, is acceptable.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that I have never been interested in the Administrative side of Wikipedia. Even though I've been here a long time there is a lot I don't know. Before this mess I'd never heard of ANI, AfD, BLP, RFC, or a lot of other terms. I've been interested in writing an encyclopedia, and that is what I've been doing. Quite frankly Wikipedia has gotten so complex we need an encyclopedia on the encyclopedia. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste articles
MR.Qwyrxian Kindly request you to verify caste articles from south india written without any proof of history and if possible remove the self glorification of these social group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.246.218 (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific? We have dozens to hundreds of caste articles; I don't know  which ones specifically you are referring to. However, I will say that my time is limited for work on caste articles (as they're not really all that interesting to me), and, also, I don't have any access to sources (I don't have an English language library near me or access to academic sources online).  However, I can at least take a look, if you'll let me know which articles concern you. Alternatively/In addition, you are welcome to start making the edits yourself, in most cases.  The great thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, as long as they follow our policies and guidelines.  Some of our articles, including some of the caste articles, can only be edited by people who have an account, but getting an account is free, easy, and doesn't require that you give any personal information; then it only takes a few days until you can start editing all articles on Wikipedia; you can find more information at WP:Account Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * IP, I would also suggest you come to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, a place where you can address a wide number of editors who specialise in India topics. I suggest you pick a few of the articles needing the most attention, and list those there, along with a very short summary of your concerns about the quality of each. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Qwyrian, thanks for your intervention on David Axelrod, hopefully things will calm down now. -- Deadly&forall;ssassin 07:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The IP will be unblocked fairly soon, and I'm not convinced that xe is going to quit.  The article's on my watchlist, but of course report it again if it continues to be a problem before I notice.  That is unambiguously WP:BLP violating info (in my opinion), so it needs to be kept out. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Finale (Seinfeld episode) again.
Sorry if I keep asking your help. You should step as he's going too far. Over a line "Jerry, I've always..."? He's unwilling to compromise because he believes indefinitely to keep the line and the other editors agree with him. I think if the dispute resolution comes or the RfC comes, you better help me on that because I'm not familiar with the process with those yet. Anyway, all I want to do is to write it another way without using the line and he's personally attacking me like he's winning the argument. As with the Minor Characters, don't know if you live in Australia but we'll continue the discussion on it, if only Hearfourwesique didn't make it harder for me when it comes to consensus and criteria which I'm still trying to understand. Don't know if I'll ever have a good night sleep. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are exactly the same as him. You're edit warring just as much as he is. Furthermore, you "started" the edit war, and refused to stop and discuss the issue, thus you're more eligible for a block than he is. You cannot change articles based on the principle of "I've watched the Episode X times, and I'm a true fan, so ...."  Now, maybe that line should come out (I've left a relevant question on the article's talk page), but the way to get there is not to edit war to remove it, but to discuss the issue.
 * Finally, if you don't understand what consensus and criteria are, then you probably can't edit Wikipedia. WP:CONSENSUS is one of the key foundations of how Wikipedia editing works. In a nutshell, it means that when people disagree, they talk about stuff until the do agree on what should be in the article.  It is, almost, the opposite of how you've been editing. Instead, you change, change, change, and only after other revert you multiple times do you stop and discuss.  Hearfour also has problems, but no better or worse than your own.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly 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 read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor
While I agreed with Lothar to go ahead with the article protection, I suggest that you at least revert to the last stable version before an indefinite freeze goes in. I just checked the history and some rather controversial edits were made by Paul Seibert right before you locked it.--Львівське (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A fair point...the problem is that in the last 26 hours or so, there've been over 25 edits, and I have no idea which have consensus and which don't. I will raise the point at the talk page, though--maybe there is consensus (save Seibert himself, of course) to leave those out as well while discussions are ongoing; they do seem to be a little different than what caused the edit warring, so... but, in any event, full protection is just a temporary thing (despite the use of the word "indefinite"), so it doesn't so much matter what's in the article now, as much as that y'all figure out together what the article should say. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ab-Soul create protection
You forgot to lock the create protect thread of now deleted Ab-Soul article. ApprenticeFan work 03:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, what happened actually was that I salted the Yugioh request after that one, but the comment ended up on AbSoul. I've now salted and commented on both. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Signpost
Please consider my comments about you here. --Tenmei (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)