User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 21

Tulip
Hey thanks for telling me that i'm just trying to get the links to work I cleaned up a bit so I hope it's to your liking PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT.--Tulip32 (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hounding
This guy was repeatedly invited to disengage from me, because he was once warned to do not cross the boundaries of hounding me. After my topic ban was expanded, due a baseless ANI triggered by him, I do not find any encyclopedic reason or purpose for him still leaving me comments inviting me to "self-criticism" "leaving out my cave", and referring to me as "making a joke of [my]self", etc. Comments that I have explicity rejected but are reposted and reposted here and there. I certainly enjoy sending that sort of comments to the trash can, but I do not want any other pretext to be used to apply even more sanctions against me. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  17:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another chapter in the long discussion. ClaudioSantos refuses to cooperate with other people, and has by now a few people on his shitlist. He refuses to talk with them. I am one of them. It is not for nothing that he has now his second topic ban, about the widest ever given... Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not editing any wikipedia-article where NotBW is involved, not even editing any article at wikipedia. What sort of cooperation is he demanding? To response his futil request to endorse "criticism"? Does he want a kind of written speech from me declaring shame about my doings? I was talking with other people at my talk page where NotBW burst to provokate such sort of useless suggestions. NotBW already crossed the lines of hounding, although he was warned to stop doing so. I am not obligated to talk with NotBW nor to response his provokations even if I enjoy it. What sort of cooperation does NotBw want when he request from me to "Come on, Claudio! You are now making a joke of yourself. Why don't you just accept that life is nasty and that you sometimes loose battles?" ? What does sort of cooperation does NotBW want when he request from me "you should face the world, dear Claudio. Come out of your cave and start living and interacting with people!"? Is there any encyclopedic purpose on that or they are solely provokations? Once I  have explicity rejected his comments and once NotBW explicity recognized that his comments and discussions are not welcomed, then why to insist in reposting them again and again at my user-talk page and then again at other users-talk pages? Is there any encyclopedic purpose on insisting in that sort of useless discussionst or it is solely provokation and disruption? what sort of cooperation is NotBW demanding when he claims ""You are such a pity boy, Claudio. You can not win from me, so now you start crying"? Is this a request of a defeatist speech to satisfy any ego? Does it has any encyclopedic purpose or it is solely provokation, disruption and hounding?  --  ClaudioSantos  ¿?  20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I was banned because of "combativeness" then why NotBW evidently warrior behavior is being allowed at all? --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Hounding? Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Image issue
Hello Qwyrxian. Could you please delete which I've just uploaded. I've been told that I should upload it on Commons and follow a particular procedure. Also, it's an orphan image at the moment as I want it to be deleted immediately. Thanks in advance. Scieberking (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it under WP:CSD, which means that the original page creator/file uploader asked for the page to be deleted. It's pretty much an automatic deletion unless other users have already edited the page/linked to the file. If you ever need to delete such a page in the future, just put  on the top of the page and an admin should delete it within a few hours.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Simon Necronomicon
Thanks for the assist. There's still a great deal more that needs to go as it is all unsourced speculation and a collection of lists. Although a fan of Lovecraft, I can see that per Wikipedia policy many of the articles need to be rationalized. The Lovecraft template is a mess I am currently trying to clean up, although I may need some support with the superfluous articles. We can all be passionate about hobbies, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. Two examples that are targets for deletion are Cthulhu Mythos celestial bodies and Cthulhu Mythos cults. Neither is notable and focus on minute fannish details. Better served on a fan page, but not Wikipedia. Regards PurpleHeartEditor   (talk)  03:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you on the Simon Necronomicon (I could even see it being very close to deletion-worthy), the other two may well be legitimate topics. Lovecraft has inspired a fair amount of critical and semi-critical analysis; it would not surprise me if, for the cults at least, there weren't one or more articles on "cults in Lovecraft" or the like (heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like "semiotic analysis of shub-niggurath and azathoth cults in the Cthulhu Mythos as allegories of the Great Mother and Great Father" (bear with me, I'm making this up off the top of my head)). The celestial bodies is less likely, as there's less to look at there (though I, again, could imagine some sort of comparative analysis between the mythology of Lovecraft and traditional astrological issues).  Once the topic were established as notable, the details could be filled in, and would not need to be verified by secondary sources (the books verify themselves, that is).   A quick google scholar search for "Cthulhu cults" turns up 558 articles; the bulk of those are actually just the stories themselves, or otherwise aren't reliable, but there may well be something useful in the details.    I don't have access to academic journals, and I'm not really up to taking on such a big project right now...but just wanted to say that there may be something out there.


 * Also, just as a side note, one thing I've found when dealing with any fan-obsessed subject is that sometimes it's worthwhile to draw a line somewhere on the gray side of notability for the group/list articles. For example, the WP:WikiProject Middle-earth has been doing some work (I'm not associated with them, just happened upon them indirectly) to clean out the fancruft that not unsurprisingly crops up around LotR, etc.  For example, there used to be a stub article for every king of Gondor.  That's just silly.  The project properly decided to get rid of all of them, save for 2 that actually do have real-world sources.  However, the group also kept List of kings of Gondor as a single page to hold all of them together.  That way, fan-folk get the basic info preserved, while the encyclopedia has less clutter.  Similar things happen for minor characters in long-running TV series.  By this logic, keeping the cult article may be worthwhile, while the celestial bodies is not, as the latter has critical information connected to the plot details of the series, while the former does not.  Again, you can still shoot for deletion or significant trimming, but sometimes...it's better to cross the field by steps, rather than bounds. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Another one is Elements of the Cthulhu Mythos, which is steeped in original research. Like the LOTR example, it has gone way too far. I think master lists may be the way to go. PurpleHeartEditor   (talk)  15:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chris Xaver
I didn't pick up that it had been tagged and detagged before, no intention to wheel. Perhaps I should have deleted as spam if anything. Anyway, it's restored now, I'll leave it to you to take any further action  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem--I'll take a look into it in more detail later and see if it can be salvaged (at least as a stub) or if it needs AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Crashlytics
Thanks for the explanation. I will work on it in a subpage. Would you mind taking a look at it when I've been able to sufficiently put in some time? I do want to make sure things are compliant with wikipedia rules as it is not my intention to write articles that are deleted (and thus waste my time). Thanks! I look forward to further contributing to the wikipedia community. BlueImpact (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to take a look at it. Just let me know when you're ready.  Remember, the key is that you need multiple, independent (i.e., not in any way connected to the company or its owners) reliable sources to show that the company is notable.  To be honest, since they've only just recent venture capital recently, it is extremely likely that they aren't' notable now.  For example, you can't say that they are notable just because they have notable founders/employees (i.e., notability is not inherited).  Unless they've already done something particularly noteworthy, you may need to wait before the info can go into the encyclopedia.  Let me know if you need any help. Qwyrxian (talk)
 * Thanks for taking the time to make things clearer for me. I spent some time this morning creating the first cut here User:BlueImpact/Crashlytics. As you can see, I hate having bad marks on my profile and need to correct it right away ;-) As I was doing the research, I found it quite interesting and dug up information from deep inside google to include in the article. Thoughts? I'll try to find time later today to work on it more. Again, appreciate your help. My goal is to contribute more. --BlueImpact (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made comments on the talk page of the sandbox article (at User talk:BlueImpact/Crashlytics). You can respond there and I'll see it...as you'll see, the article seems to me to be right on the edge now. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for taking the time to help! I responded more specifically on the discussion thread there. I will go ahead and take your suggestions and make the modifications. BlueImpact (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Modifications made! (and added a short question to the discussion thread). BlueImpact (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I submitted it for review at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Crashlytics -- any advice? BlueImpact (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. For now, I'll let the AfC reviewers take over (it can take a few weeks for them to get back to you, as there's currently a very large backlog).  If you need help, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:24.98.49.192
Hi Qwyrxian, I reverted on of this user's edits to Argument from authority and noticed that you had already warned him about removing sources and whatnot, so I'm letting you know that the behavior is continuing. Regards. N o f o rmation Talk  18:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP for 72 hours, but sincerely doubt that's the last we've heard from xyr. Xe may not even notice the block, since there were 5 days between the last edit and today's...but I didn't feel comfortable going higher than 72 hours for the first block.  If it continues let me know (if I don't see it first) and the blocking length will escalate.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Blendr
Orlady (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Paragliding
Please unprotect the Paragliding article. You or someone just obliterated some 20 hours of work with references. Thank you. And by the choice to overwrite my work instead of freezing at that point seems to show a choice that does not fit Wikipedia guides. Jontly (?) did not come to discuss; he did damages without signing, I suspect that was he. The article is severely with a narrow point of view. Much work is urged to do justice to "paragliding" way beyond the interests of just a few current sellers of sport paragliding wings. Paragliding is a large topic; readers deserve neutral point of view, not just a sales push of sport paragliding. There is a need for two moreBold text articles: Sport paragliding   and one for the machine Paraglider. And contest on the how to do sport paragliding belongs in Wikiuniversity. Is this note better here in your talk or below your note in the article's Discussion; thanks for tutoring me on this question; I don't not which place is most polite or most fit. Thanx. Joefaust (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I protected the article because several of you were edit warring over the content of the article. When admins fully protect because of a dispute, they don't look at the content and decide which is "correct"; admins have no special "vote" over how to make an article correct. The fact that the current version is the one I protected is not an endorsement of that version.  Again, the only reason for full protection is to prevent people from just warring back and forth, and, instead, compel actual discussion on the article's talk page.  I recommend that you start doing so; if the other parties refuse to discuPss the issue, then I will prod them to do so.  In fact, I'll actually go do that now.  You may need to use our dispute resolution process if you can't solve the problem yourselves.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure where to answer what you placed on my Talk page. I copy here.:  :::Thank you. Sorry. Will be more careful on that. I was responding to his phrase: " If you prefer I can hit the "undo" until it the page is locked?".   That felt like a manifesto of a vandal; but I will not react on such declaration again.  Thanks for the guidance.  I guess unending undo is an OK procedure.  Joefaust (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you have a look at Paragliding (again). The edit protection has just expired and I don't feel user:joefaust has quite understood the concept of consensus on the discussion page followed by modification of the article. Thanks. Jontyla (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I attempted to edit the Paragliding page this evening with a view to keeping much of what user "joefaust" has added, even though I would have preferred not to. I had attempted to merge his changes within a reasonable description of Paragliding. He has, once again, gone against consensus and edited in all sorts of junk. You don't need to be a pilot to know a paraglider is not a kite, and you only have to visit the Glider aircraft page to see paragliding listed! I know who these two editors are and they have been banned from all major paragliding forums for trying to enforce their ideas on the mainstream and refusing to accept differing opinions. I truly feel sorry that our dirty laundry has made its way to the doorstep of Wikipedia. 88xxxx (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The definition of paragliding that users "joefaust and "nopara" wish to see for our sport is not mainstream and is not acceptable to the paragliding community. Many of them will not check the page regularly enough to have noticed. I would hope you have formed an opinion after witnessing their editing of my posts in the Talk:Paragliding page over the past few days. Likewise, please be aware that both I & Jontyla have been arguing a viewpoint supported by many thousands of pilots and I fear we will not stand idly by and allow such a definition of the sport we love be defined by such extreme self publicists. Surely there must be a procedure that can be initiated when such things occur. I don't believe this page can be the first to experience such behaviour from a minority that has been banned from all specific forms of communication that they turn to Wikipedia. 88xxxx (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I would ask you to please protect or otherwise lock the Paragliding page again so these rogue users cannot modify it further with their inaccuracies. Secondly, please inform me where I should direct the paragliding community such that a true consensus be delivered. As you have said, Wikipedia is not a democracy it moves forward with consensus and it is a fact that, to this point, you have heard a few pilots put forward the case against these two, but there are literally thousands of pilots who are in agreement with us. Keeping them up to date with the recent changes to the Paragliding page is something we have both been actively trying to avoid. We love our sport and we wish to see it defined as best we can, including seeing the dangers associated with it fairly laid out to anyone looking for a description of what we do. Nothing more and nothing less. 88xxxx (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it--see my note on the article's talk page. Note that we will never protect an article simply to prevent changes: we only protect articles to stop edit wars.  Wikipedia articles must be free to change in as many cases as possible.  Do not direct the pilots anywhere--I'm currently investigated whether or not you or any other users have been organizing a campaign off of Wikipedia; I'm happy that so far we haven't had any flood of new users, but you cannot canvas off of Wikipedia to get people to show up here to request changes.  Wikipedia is not interested in hearing what the "paragliding community" thinks.  What we care about is what is written in reliable sources.  Period.  This is exactly the same as the fact that we don't go to the subjects of biographical articles and ask them to vet the info; if a reliable source says something, and it meets our other content policies like WP:NPOV, then we include it.  If there are multiple perspectives in reliable source about what paragliding is, then we're going to include them.  If the sources are overwhelmingly in favor of one specific perspective, then our article will reflect that (that is, we don't include every viewpoint, as we can exclude those that are WP:FRINGE).
 * Think about it this way. Let's say you get 15 people to show up here that all say "Paragliding refers to the sport; all other meanings are secondary." What if Joefaust goes and gets 15 people who say the opposite? How could we even verify the identity of those, and determine if they really are "experts"?  This is why Wikipedia just has to rely on reliable sources rather than the word of experts.  Very often, experts disagree.  Our job is not to pick the "right answer", but to fairly represent all major viewpoints in due respect to their real world importance.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate you efforts. This evening I tried to edit the page to allow his links and references to the minority uses a paraglider has, but he edited right over the top. We have been dealing with these guys for some time and they have been thrown out of just about everywhere, not that this should affect your decision on a way forward, of course. They have three motivations here, 1) to discredit paragliding safety by linking to news reports they have been collecting 2) to try and give the other uses of a paraglider more importance when in reality they are a tiny % 3) Passing the time by winding up pilots as entertainment. You can't know this, but we do, and I suspect you will have the time to get to know this, as we've seen how they operate. Unfortunately they are unlikely to leave WP any time soon.


 * Just so you know, there are other uses for a paraglider, but they amount to such a small percentage they cannot be considered side-by-side. That said, they should probably be linked to in a true encyclopaedic environment. Likewise, there are probably no more than 5 people in the world that share their negative view on paragliding and one bloody email from either Jontyla or myself could have 500 comments by midday tomorrow. I know this is all new to you and you can only go by what you see occurring to a page, not by content, I do appreciate your position. Otherwise you could not be independent. 88xxxx (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have just re-read your comment and two things have just struck me that perhaps I should also comment on. Canvassing: I don't quite know what you mean. Your comments imply that we as a collective group can canvas using Wikipedia in some way to further a cause (?) If that is what is meant rest easy, we just want to see a fair description of our sport which is the generally accepted use of the term paragliding. If you mean we are canvassing against these users, then yet again relax, we really don't care about them as long as they are not harming the public opinion of our sport in any significant way. Which is it? What am I missing here? ... Secondly, "reliable sources". I appreciate that reliable sources may be used to confirm facts and figures such as fatalities or numbers of cars sold per year or whatever, but how does one use a "reliable source" to define an activity without referring to a dictionary? What do we do if we wish to persuade an independent observer, such as yourself, that the common definition of paragliding is what we do? Point you to the OED or Websters, or send you a screenshot that show the first 100 hits on Google refer to our sport? How do we go about demonstrating that 99.9% of uses of the term paragliding refer to our sport and that we should acknowledge the other (tiny minority) of uses as links or in a small section of the definition? 88xxxx (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding canvassing: WP:CANVAS says, in the section on Inappropriate Canvassing, that "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)" is not acceptable.  So, you shouldn't be talking on any other forum about concerns you have with this article...well, that would be borderline...but if at any point in the future you asked people to come to Wikipedia to help advance a particular position (either by overloading a discussion on a talk page, or trying to influence an AfD, or something similar), then you would have definitely crossed the line over into inappropriate canvassing.
 * Regarding the definition: Several options. One would be, rather than grab the OED, instead, find one or two of the most respected books in the field that cover the entirety of the topic; such books are very likely to include a definition in the introduction.   These don't have to be "expert level" books--even if there was a book for beginners that really just set out to give a basic guide to the field, so long as it is reliable (i.e., published by a major publishing house, not clearly biased, well thought of in the field, etc.), then that can serve as a good starting point.  Another place would be in articles from outside of the field that still happen to mention it.  For instance, if there were a good article on something like "legal liability in sports" that happened to include a definition of paragliding, that would also help.  Finally, as far as talk page discussions go, it is actually helpful to provide google results (no screenshot necessary as long as no one objects).  Mind you, you should not only do a Google Web search, but also a Google Scholar search and possibly Google News Search.  We do this all the time when we're trying to decide the names of articles which have more than one name.  The how-to guide Search engine test gives some guidance about how search engine results can and can't be used.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, we can relax on the canvassing issue. We've actively been hushing it up as we'd prefer that sought after responsible look they all want. If it reaches the stage that I clearly DGAF then canvassing will become an issue, but not for me. Re: paragliding definition; I listed two books in the Paragliding:Talk page last week with amazon.com links, search for Amazon in the page. Are you seriously asking me to do some googling and send you the results? And scholars? I work for a Europe-wide Scientific Agency and I've met three pilots professionally, or how about a mail from an Oxford Professor of xxxxx? Give me your mobile number, I'll get him to text you! I don't intend spending much more time on this than I have already invested. It would be an all round easier job to send 5 emails. 88xxxx (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As you saw above, I'm not the one you need to convince on the definitions--it's other editors. You getting those books (which I had forgotten, thanks) is an excellent step.  Furthermore, I think your point (or was it someone else's?) that the top 150 Google search results all seem to refer to paragliding the support is also strong evidence.  At the moment, you don't need more...just be patient, sometimes things on WP take time; I'm still trying to get advice as to whether my next step is re-protecting the article or blocking editors.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * May I proffer wisdom as a watchword here? You've tried the protection approach already. You protected the page a week ago. It worked well, it kept the page unedited for a week. We all discussed things openly. Two editors started changing our edits in the Talk page as they were incapable of straight debate. The page was unprotected. One of these editors then immediately began his campaign of re-writing the page. So let me get this straight, is your plan to restart that procedure and run through it again? If it is, I can number the steps to make it easier for them to follow as I feel they may be on a par with the youngest of my children when it comes to following instructions and it may assist us in getting right back to the point we are at now in less time. 88xxxx (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you find in real life (or other web forums, for that matter), that you achieve success when you directly or indirectly insult people, both your opponent and those you are trying to help? I suggest you rethink your approach, here.  Regarding the article, I'm still hoping to get more input from WP:AN before proceeding. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth? I've tried both and they seem to give pretty much the same results, but with indirect humour and sarcasm I get to have chuckle on the way. What it can do, sometimes is grab attention, and in this case it is neither an insult nor insulting, it is a statement of my point of view. It is, for all intents and purposes, one man asking another man not to try again what has already been tried and has failed, because he feels all that will result is an additional time-delay between where they both are now and where the resolution lies. And with every day that passes before a resolution is found hours of peoples lives are wasted, so he has concluded that anyone choosing that path is making a mistake. My opinion. Stated clearly. We do appreciate your help, it's just we have been dealing with users such as these (these people maybe!) for well over 10 years, and although we may know little of WP protocols, we do know the game they are playing. 88xxxx (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr Q, I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to reply to your message on my talk page here, or there, or somewhere else -- does Wikipedia not have a user-to-user message system? Anyway, I'm not sure how to self-revert, but if you want to revert my recent changes, feel free. On a more general point, Joe Faust and Rick Masters (aka Nopara -- the clue's in the name) are anti-paragliding evangelists (or should that be unevangelists?) who want to tell everyone how dangerous paragliding is and persuade them to stop doing it. I don't think Wikipedia is the right place for this -- especially as Joe often uses words and phrases that are unique to his mind. Regards, me Manormadman (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"manormadman": The PG side is being handled as best we can for the past week or so by both Jontyla and myself. (both known from PGF), please do not spread this around the PG community the last thing we need right now is 1000 pilots all commenting here as all hell will break loose. You know what happens when these two characters get on the back of pilots. We have been trying to resolve tons of issues, including the PDMC, pages that have a complete dump of "cometclones" links, etc, you can imagine! To this point we have seen standard behaviour and admin Qwyrxian has had to deal with these users usual approach of simply not listening. Please let us carry on in the background, or for a laugh, read the talk page of Paragliding, etc, but keep it to yourself for a bit, ok? (the other) 88xxxx (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @88xxxx: Well, glad that works out for you in real life. On WP, since we have to edit in a collaborative environment, we actually require civility, as a policy.  Please try to tone down the jokes and get your amusement elsewhere (oddly, I recall saying something similar to Joefaust recently...).  Regarding the article, I'll make a decision re: protection, etc., today.
 * @Manormadman: I may revert your edits; I'm not actually sure what I'm reverting to yet; still looking for other uninvolved opinions. As for "evangelizing" well, yes, that's bad (we call it POV-pushing). The issue is being dealt in part with deletion of some of the more egregious "articles".  Nonetheless, if there are reliable sources that actually say things like "Paragliding is dangerous", then we have to include that info.  So far, I haven't actually seen those sources, but I'm still waiting. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, would you consider archiving the Discussion page while making the cut at a helpful section. I am not WP skilled in deciding the matter or doing archiving of such talk pages. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, "Paragliding is dangerous" is both undeniable and almost meaningless. I myself have seen an accident which killed two people -- I know it's dangerous. Cycling is dangerous (I've suffered grazes and bruises), cooking is dangerous (I've burned my thumb and cut my finger), climbing K2 solo in winter is dangerous (far too dangerous for me to want to do it, unlike cycling, cooking and paragliding). I think no one objects to well-sourced material on the dangers of paragliding -- either in absolute terms or relative to other pursuits -- if there's any to be found. But I believe that Nopara and Joe Faust are determined to push their point of view that paragliding is unacceptably dangerous specifically because  paragliders have no rigid structure. I've yet to see any reliable source say this -- only their own assertions. Regards, Manormadman (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Manormadman, as a new contributor, maybe you don't know, but Wikipedia admins actually have no authority over content. Or, rather, they have no special authority--usually admins can engage in content disputes just like any other editor.  In this particular case, I can't even do that, because I'm acting with my admin "hat" (i.e., I'm the one who protected the article); as such, I have to remain strictly uninvolved in the dispute.  If I were to become involved, then I could no longer use my admin tools there.  I am happy to help guide you on processes you can use to resolve the dispute, but as far as actually deciding anything about paragliding, I can't really help.
 * Having said that though, I can tell you that Wikipedia policy says that any statement that might be challenged must be verified by a reliable source. So if I see any editors continually trying to push info without such a source, or with unreliable sources, then I'll let them know that they can't do that.  So if Nopara and Joefaust can produce good reliable sources that say that paragliding is dangerous, well, then, the article should probably say that in some way shape or form (though you are correct to point out that there are many different ways to phrase that).  If they can't produce such sources, then they can't.  One thing that I think Joefaust is learning (or, if he isn't, he should be) is that what he can't do is take 100 different articles that each list a death or injury in paragliding and then interpret that to mean "Paragliding is dangerous" (that's a form of original research); similarly, he can't rely on self-published websites (probably, there's a little more leeway there depending on who the publisher is).  I'll be monitoring the discussion; I'm betting that at some point you all will need to use some form of dispute resolution, which I can help assist in setting up.  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Understood! Although I should point out that I'm not a new contributor -- I see from my Contributions page that I've been editing Wikipedia (occasionally) for four and a half years. Manormadman (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My spam folder just picked this up. It has been sent to an unknown set of email recipients and bcc'd to me. I have some experience away from WP with these editors and email from their websites are filtered straight to spam. It is an email to unknown recipients from user:Joefaust on behalf of Rick Masters asking the recipients to compare the paragliding page to a private website. On the first line of the email there are links to paragliding and "here" links to Rick Masters "cometclones" website. Does this count as "Canvassing? 88xxxx (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

from	 to bcc	xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com date	17 October 2011 18:05 subject	October Lift updated with a quote. mailed-by	bounce.secureserver.net Signed by	gmail.com Wikipedia warning: readers are invited to compare what they find on Wikipedia paragliding to what is presented here.

To my old HG friends who now fly paragliders: It is your decision to fly dangerous, critically-balanced gliding parachutes instead of superior air-framed aircraft. I am not here to prevent you from flying paragliders, although too many of you are being injured and killed, and it is my personal desire that you will stop. Despite the obvious fact that paraglider evolution has hit the brick wall, I would impose no restriction on open competitions because they best demonstrate this. I respect the right of stuntmen to perform stunts. What I cannot tolerate is the commercial presentation of paragliders as equivalent to safer aircraft with proven negative "g" loading. You know what I am talking about. The people coming into paragliding need to hear you admit that you are performing stunts. They need to hear you say that paragliding in turbulence entails a new realm of aviation risk. You are not doing this. That is dishonest, unethical, and in the end, because of the horrific number of crippling injuries and excessive fatalities: I have concluded that it is immoral not to discuss this.

Signed:      www.CometClones.com

[2011. so far to Oct. 16: 71 fatalities, which is incomplete.] If you give me an email address I can forward you the original email. How do we proceed against User:Joefaust and ensure that this stops? If we find a large influx of pilots changing the paragliding page then I will feel obliged to balance this by posting the above email on a paragliding forum, and trust me, I would prefer not to do this. I feel we have good number of users making points on behalf of the community here as it stands right now. 88xxxx (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please go to E-mailing users, and turn on your email. Then, go to Qwyrxian, and send me an email, with any message. Then leave me a message on this talk page.  Then, I will reply to your email; this will give you my email address and allow you to forward stuff to me.
 * I have just sent you an email. 88xxxx (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am uncertain whether or not this constitutes improper canvassing; I will have to discuss the issue with some more experienced admins or with ArbCom. However, no matter what happens on the pages, don't repeat the same mistake. It's just like how, if your neighbor steals from you, you don't steal something from them--do that, and you both go to jail (etc.).  Instead, you take the issue to the relevant authorities (i.e., admins/arbcom) and let them deal with it.  Everything which is done on WP can be undone. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but obviously I would not be particularly comfortable in having every logical discussion thrown back in my face simply due to weight of numbers rather than actually being shown to be wrong. 88xxxx (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

More images
Hello Qwyrxian. These two more images (File:Ra.One audio launch.jpg and File:Shahrukh Khan launches 'Ra.One' - Nvidia GEFORCE GTX 560Ti graphic card.jpg) have been uploaded on the Commons and now, for the proper usage token by OTRS system to be assigned, both must be removed from Wikipedia, as they're already being hosted on Commons. Would you please delete them from Wikipedia? Thanks. Scieberking (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like User:RHaworth got the first one, and User:Magog the Ogre got the second one. I think that there's some sort of automatically generated category that shows duplicate files between WP and Commons and thus show admins that they need to be deleted here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Great. Thank you very much. Scieberking (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

76.111.62.62
Came right off their block and began to add hoax Antenna TV additions all over again; it's clear they just sat out and waited patiently before resuming their vandalism.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 weeks block this time. Let me know if it happens again after the block is done (I've taken all tv station pages off of my watchlist).  Next time it I'll probably go up to 2 months.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Satisfactory and correctly done?
Hi Qwyrxian, was this (On Talk:Muhammad) done correctly and should it be to everyone's satisfaction? If not, let me know and I will fix. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is excellent, thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Review for FA
Hi, Hope now the article Hyderabad, India meets the standards of FA, Kindly have a review and advice us for further actions. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean GA, right? For all practical purposes, you can't apply for FA review unless the article is already GA.  Which, by the way, it isn't ready for either.  It needs copy-editing, it's got a bit of puffery, and it's blindingly blue (i.e., it violates WP:OVERLINK). If I have time, I will try to attend to this in the next few days; but I may not (I've been swamped with some big projects recently).  If you don't hear from me in 2 days, please remind me.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as you advice first GA and then FA. Any way mean while I will try to clear some blue lines (WP:OVERLINK) and update you. :) regards.Omer123hussain (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For your kind reminder, :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sadly, I think it's going to be a while before I can get to it. Just so that it gets done eventually for sure, I've left a request at the Guild of Copy Editors; they are currently running at about a month backlog, so it could be awhile.  I will return to this if I have time, but I don't know that I will.  Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Great, I hope its okay now to go for GA with Hyderabad, India. Plz advice,  :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Santana
Hi. Thank you for closing this. I appreciate your carefully consideration of the closure. However I wonder why you redirected the project to WikiProject Music? I thought you were moving it to Moxy's userspace? Was that just a temporary measure? Regards. -- Klein zach  06:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did both. Huh...I just went to look up the policy, and realized I was mistaken. I thought that cross-name space redirects were always forbidden, but, it turns out that they're not (only Article to non-article redirects).
 * Still, though, I think this is better. Basically, the process was that I redirected it to the music wikiproject, which is the best possible redirect in the same namespace; then, "after" deletion, I accepted Moxy's request that the deleted content be userfied (I actually did the moves/redirect in the opposite order, but that was just for technical reasons) .  In other words, if someone were to somehow type "WP:WikiProject Santana" in the searchbox, I don't want them being sent to Moxy's namespace and thinking that this is an actual current Wikiproject.   Letting Moxy have it in his namespace means, though, that he can try to recruit more members (such as by posting a request at Talk:Santana or on WT:WikiProject Music), and, if xe can get enough members, easily recreate the wikiproject in Wikipedia space again.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more intuitive to redirect it to the relevant genre project WikiProject Rock music, rather than WikiProject Music which is an umbrella project for the whole music spectrum. Maybe you looked at the Rock music option? Was there some reason not to go that route? -- Klein zach  P.S. Will you also be fixing the Santana project talk page banner template? -- Klein  zach  12:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I redirected to the Rock music project as more relevant. I removed the Wikiproject from the template. Do you, by any chance, use AWB? Personally, I haven't had much success with making it do what I want it to do, so I don't use it.  That would be the fastest way to handle removing all of the talk page banners...there's over 200, and the thought of doing that by hand makes my head hurt.  Twinkle's backlink function won't help, because I actually need to remove the templates, not just the link.  I can try using AWB again myself, but I can't do for probably 36 hours or so (I can't run programs like AWB at work because I'm behind my employer's proxy server), and I won't have time at home until tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the redirect. The solution for the banner problem I've used before is to redirect the template Template:WikiProject Santana to Template:WikiProject Rock music. This is not ideal since it potentially leaves a duplicate banner on the talk page. To remove them I think you need to arrange a bot run. (I don't use AWB.) In the meantime, as you are busy, I'll do the template redirect. -- Klein zach  10:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I have time tonight, I'll try experimenting with AWB again. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I AWB'd yesterday, and then polished off all of the categories today. One problem is that I don't think tagging some of those pages as "Wikiproject Rock Music" is actually correct, since I'm not actually sure that everything Santana did is classified as Rock music; in cases where the page already had something like "WikiProject Jazz", I took of the Rock music one as it seemed redundant/contradictory.  I hope that finishes off everything. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that all sounds sensible. Thank you for your work on this. -- Klein zach  23:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your user name
I think I just got it! Is it Christian? But kind of how a baby would pronounce it? N o f o rmation Talk  17:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it's pronounced either "quirksian" or "queeeerkzian". I made up a similar name a long time ago to play computer games (Ultima series, I think), and ended up picking it as one of my main online names.  Oddly, the original point was to have a nearly unpronounceable name.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why this biasness against Yadav
I fail to understand why administrators are not taking any action against people who are spreading hatred against a particular community

Situs and fowler have conveniently establish a false fact that Yadav/Yadu/Yadavas are all different so if there is anything positive it can go to any other page but not Yadav, though 1000 of sources have been provided on the talk page.

Any positive change done on the page is immediately removed by them. And they continue to vandalize the page by writing incorrect information

Situs removes pics of renowned Yadav leaders saying being Yadav doesn't mean they belong to caste which is being discussed over here(though these leaders publicly brag about their castes)and how was pic of harvesting women (taken from flickr verified )

Please stop it.There should be an end to this.

Just a bunch of people can not misguide the entire population — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar1984 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on the pictures; as far as I know, the question is whether or not it is verified that they are Yadav, and sometimes it also has to do with image quality and copyright. In any event, since I am active on that page, I cannot take any administrative actions on it or its participants.  If you really think this is a problem, you should either 1) go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and start a discussion, or 2) if you think the act is intentionally disrespectful or offensive, open a report on WP:ANI.  For both, please make sure you include diffs (links to the edits containing what you think are offensive posts). One final note: if you do either, your own behavior will be scrutinized as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Err :D. Thanks for this. I had totally forgotten to do that. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk  03:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

vanniyars are most backward caste in India. please dont put khastriya
I have replied to your comments in the Talk:Vanniyar page under this topic. Please have a look.

Thanks, Kalingarayar (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I will go through reliable sources guidelines. But for the kshatriya status, Alf Hiltebeitel's "Rethinking India's oral and classical epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims and Dalits" does not qualify as a reliable source? Also, the name of the community in the goverment website (and in government records for almost 100 years now) is mentioned as "Vanniya Kula Kshatriya". Isnt that formal or reliable enough?

Kalingarayar (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know that source; i recommend raising it on the talk page (with a link to the publication info at least, if you have it). As for government inclusion, my understanding was that that was only one state; different states ascribe different statuses to the same group.  And, even if they did, no, it wouldn't be enough, as there is no reason to say that the government is the final authority on the matter of varna status. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Titles
Hi Qwyrxian,

Why are titles such as "Mr" "Mrs" and "Dr" forbidden on Wikipedia articles?

MrAmberGold (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)MrAmberGoldMrAmberGold (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The rule is covered in WP:MOSBIO. It says we don't use any of those prefixes.  There are all sorts of reasons (how would we decide between Mrs and Ms, for example), but more importantly, just think about other serious things you've read.  Textbooks, encyclopedias, newspapers, news magazines, etc....none of those use "Mr".  For example, other serious writing doesn't say "Mr. Winston Churchill" or "Ms Angela Merkel".  The only exception is when that title is actually a part of their most common name, like Dr. Drew or Mother Theresa. Using those titles simply isn't a professional way of writing.
 * By the way, thanks for coming to discuss the issue! Wikipedia is built on the idea that people work together to edit articles, especially when they have disagreements. If you ever have any questions about Wikipedia, you are always welcome to ask me.  I hope you don't quit Wikipedia just because I was disagreeing with you and trying to enforce our rules. It often happens that people disagree here, so we have all sorts of ways of discussing things and (hopefully) coming to a consensus on what should be done.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

India Page Final Dem Img Rotation Vote
There is currently a vote going on to decide the final images to be selected in the Demographics Image Rotation. Some new images were added to the pool. Please carefully see the new proposals and vote for your favorite images that best represent the people of India.

Please vote here.

Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyderabad
Hello, re your comment on India project page: Hyderabad, Sindh is the fourth-largest city in Pakistan, otherwise Hyderabad, India would be primary topic. The discussion recently about the naming of Indian places was probably going to reach an agreement that they be named place, state rather than place, India before an ex-contributor went off the rails a bit and created bizarre dabs. Hyderabad would seem to be the one exception to the convention; perhaps the other should be named Hyderabad, Pakistan? While there still seems to be an argument that the state of Odisha is not Odisha but must be called by a previous name I am happy to keep out of it and everything else concerned with the sub-continent (bugger of a job to delete thousands of Indian articles on my watchlist but I am getting there!) Regards, Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Hi Qwyrxian. You participated in Village pump (policy), which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Village pump (policy), it pertains to Request close and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Joefaust at AN/I
See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I've discovered that he's recreating the Triangle control frame in his userspace and also seems to be preparing to spawn yet another round of articles which seem likely to be put through AFD for any number of reasons. Since you've been riding herd on the paragliding mess I thought I should bring this to your attention. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought I should warn you that I'm going to reject Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paraglider (gliding kite) in an hour or so. Yes, another fork. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I don't really know anything about aircraft, but as far as I can tell, Joefaust is trying to define "paraglider" to mean, well, almost anything without an engine.  Knowing almost nothing, I still sincerely doubt that the aviation community in general defines "kites" as a form of "paragliders".
 * In a small sense, a little bit of this may not exactly be Joefaust's fault. Part of the problem arose because he wanted to add info to Paragliding; information which was rejected by other editors as being entirely outside of aviation community norms.  It's possible that there was room for compromise (that discussion continues at Paragliding), but after kind-of being told to shove off, he did what seemed like the next best thing, and got the info into WP another way. Nonetheless, he seems to be POV pushing, even though I don't think xe realizes that.  If you want to see an example of something really scary, take a look at his proposed outline for the article he would like to put at Paragliding: User:Joefaust/DRAFTarticleStructureParagliding.   I cringed, and said unequivocally that an article of that length and structure would never be allowed.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that too when I was collecting the list of articles he has waiting in the wings. Oy. I only know about the field what comes of reading everything that comes within reach, but I'm old enough to know the basic history: hang gliding as we know it now developed from the Rogallo wing, which started out entirely flexible but which developed longitudinal spars. Paragliding came along later when people figured out that parafoil parachutes could be adapted for soaring as well. Kites cut completely across this and are anything that is tethered and is kept in the air by wind blowing past it. That last is what NASA says, and that's about as authoritative a source as one can get.


 * I could think about trying to help referee this (I'm hell on wheels about verification) but I'm unwilling to deal with that and JF too. Mangoe (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hoping there is a way to see alternative interpretations on actions. Qwyrxian, if you would look carefully, both you and 88xxxx pressed for both reasons why a visitor might approach "paraglider" and what sections might be in "paragliding". You instructed me not to put a wall of text in the paraglider dab discussion; so, in user space I made that outline of sectors, certainly not to put such in article space, but to answer both you, Jontyl and 88xxxx as we were in the midst of dab discussing. I was being polite and resourceful to create at considerable work an outline of sectors that might help editors structure the article paragliding. Yet, you and others put a negative spin on such polite presentation that was on topic of what Jontyl put up for consensus work; he asked for suggestions on sections; I presented with simple link; then big negative spin on my effort. It felt really awful to have such negative spin after doing work exactly on topic in consensus discussion. Rash judgment over motives has occurred to have a negative impact.   I have been giving the benefit of doubt that seasoned editors would go full court before finalizing negative statements on newbie editors.  That very effort also was tied to the oft put idea by many editors that the article paragliding has much that could better go into Wikibooks; so I felt like a team member going in that possible direction.  And there is in WP an Outline project for pages that help visitors navigate. WikiProject Outlines    It has been as though it is vogue to fear flood rather than encourage growth.  Joefaust (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Outline of canoeing and kayaking Joefaust (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will try extra hard to "properly converse" and will stay very short with high effort for keen RS, if I contribute; I will avoid editing the article "paragliding", but only work in consensus discussion in the Article Discussion page. Would that conduct help? Joefaust (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is moot now for at least six month, I guess, as I have been topic-banned from paragliding and hang gliding. I am studying what that means. I trust that you might review and see if there was baiting and/or mocking by two in the discussions; I felt it, but did stay cool by the affronts that were repeated. And please review if you invited efforts that when result was presented you may have rashly slammed the efforts. Thank you.  " Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them." I trust you watch the same two that carried their actions from their forum into this area of concern. Thank you. Joefaust (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a technical question that after studying the topic-ban notes in WP: I am not sure whether or not I am allowed or not to edit in User space draft pages that concern paragliding or hang gliding; I am sincerely not sure about this matter. Thanks for your moment to address this question, Qwyrxian.  Joefaust (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a technical question as I see someone placed an e-mail copy. I live paragliding daily; I participate in forums daily on paragliding. I send daily emails on paragliding to forum members. If I continue such daily life that belongs to me, that is, continue with my hobby life in paragliding, and some of my correspondents happen to be ...on their own... editors of WP (which I have no control over, like Jontyla and 88xxxx), then does WP hold that against me during topic ban; I have no intent to canvass or proxy or sockpuppet or evade. It would be abhorrent to think WP somehow would operate to interpret the continuation of my private hobby life as somehow disrespecting the WP goals; so I ask, as I am running shy of the following onslaught that you could track by one of the editors in the subject area. Thanks for facing this technical question. Joefaust (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Another technical question on topic ban, please. Does the topic ban apply to editing in Wikipedia only or does it apply to WikiBooks, Wikitionary, Wikiquotes, etc, the other projects of Wikipedia Foundation?  Thank you for the clarification or sending me elsewhere for answer. Joefaust (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Among the challenges you expressed: "he should have gone to DRV"   WHAT IS THAT DRV? Oct. 26, 2011 and I do not yet know what DRV is; and so the "should" bites me at my good faith efforts. I will try to find DRV and study it. Joefaust (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)  OK: Wikipedia:Deletion review. No, I did not have an awareness of DRV; rather, I just in good faith saw that the plural was very distinct from the singular and another effort could be made as the pages permitted such to take place; at that time there was no consensus on such matters; and I was not as aware as I am now that during discussion one is somehow prevented to continue bring forward things one believes is good for WP as told us on just about every page I meet in WP; adjusting to the power of presumptive disruption is new to me. Joefaust (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This feels like my final scope technical question: Am I permitted to discuss paragliding or hang gliding on Ahunt's User Talk page; he is a seasoned aviation editor in WP. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since my real identity is exposed by me and since Jontyla posts a severe falsity in his comment on the Afd page on an org article I put up, how might I help correct the WP presence of the statement. Here are the facts: I did solely found the first United States Hang Glider Association. Distinguish Glider from Gliding. Then the later org that I co-founded with "Gliding" was formally given rights by me of the "Glider" name with clause of non-competition. Jontyla wrote: "Delete Spam article. In addition, dishonest. Mentions FAI to give credibility but I believe is not formally recognised by same, refers to itself as the successor to USHGA but this body still exists having merely changed its name to USHPA. Jontyla (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)  Is such slams that are not factual allowed? My statements in the article start were factual and verifiable and honest.  With my topic-ban, I am apparently not allowed to face Jontyla either at the deletion discussion nor on his talk page. So, as admin, can you do something about this matter?  I mentioned FAI as the contrast is a core foundational matter for the mission of the WPGA, not for credibility winning. Thank you for guidance/help on this matter; I am not sure about scope of topic-ban in facing the severe disruption caused by Jontyla who has narrow POV from PGforum to keep pressing against anything I do in WP; for enlightenment, follow his posts on my topic starts in the forum where he does most of his discussing; see how he treated simple creative topics that I started. What to do about such character hits?  Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've answered these questions as best as I can on your talk page in this edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the light of these comments I've modified the AfD discussion to withdraw the accusation of dishonesty. Jontyla (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Studying all. Complying. PLEASE delete all the secondary draft articles in my user space; I do not know how to delete them. I saved my work. Thank you. I blanked watch list and will start fresh watchlist. Joefaust (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All sub-pages that I could find in my User were tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One last request. If you look at early version of the org article, I was accurate with logo spelling with capital "G" in the middle word of the org title. Somehow typo lost the capital G in the title and in the bold first phrase; for accuracy of the article and reords, the capital G would serve WP and the history most accurately. I do not want to risk any ire from WP for editing; if you would consider the need for logo accuracy on this matter, please put in the capital G. whenever the proper title of the org is used in WP. Thank you, for your time and good works. Joefaust (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll make the change if the article is kept, which it seems unlikely to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)