User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 24

Trance
Thanks for your message. I'll open discussion on this presently, i think there are goods reasons not to call the article "trance music." -- Semitransgenic talk. 22:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've made that into an official requested move discussion, and moved the article back to the old title for the duration of the discussion (standard procedure, because if the result is "No consensus", the article needs to stay at the original title, not the proposed new one). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

IoT
Requests_for_page_protection — The last one was from here Special:Contributions/97.117.123.239, and I've noticed it changes very frequently, that's why I said "dynamic". One of the others: Special:Contributions/71.213.32.128. — Jean Calleo (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the page itself can't be protected? — Jean Calleo (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if I protected it, it would still be for just a few days. The goal of this block is to get the IP user to pay attention and actually discuss the issue on the talk page.  Should it not have the desired effect, then I can switch to escalating lengths of page protection.  The idea is that it's best to use the lightest tool that I can to get the desired effect. My goal isn't to prevent that particular edit, it's to make the IP editor explain why the edit belongs in the article, rather than just edit warring to add it.  I'll add the article to my watch list; if I miss a resumption of the problem, let me know.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Can I ask you as an uninvolved editor to come and determine whether we have talk page consensus here: Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 9? "Consensus" should usually be obvious of course but it's a little tricky here, the only editor who is against bringing the discussed change into the article, seems to be using every tactic in the book to prolong the discussion. And the discussion is merely about a section title. I really think the debate should be concluded now but I can't be the one to make that call. — Jean Calleo (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
yes! Although i found the solution before you answer. Anyway thanks for your answer.

And i wanna share that there is no need to fill coordinates in degree, mins and seconds, just write the degree in decimal form in the infobox (i.e. Infobox India Jurisdiction), for example:- "latd = 30.35715 and longd = 74.68834" wiki automatically converts it into degree,mins and seconds like 30° 21' 26" and so the longitude. So no need to insert coordinates in degree mins and seconds type/format, just enter it in decimal format. And any response to this edit or any help on Punjabi language or Gurmukhi script or anything plz edit my talkpage. Tari 16:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC) TariButtar (talk • contribs

My Chemical Romance awards
Hi,

Thanks for looking at my edit request! I just have a few questions about what you said.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying "blogs are also not awards". Do you mean that I can't use blogs as sources? For Kerrang!, for example, from what I understand their blog is an official place for them to mention nominations. Also, which awards do you believe I should remove from my list if they are not important? Looking at an awards and nominations page like Muse's - some of the same awards that may not be as important as others, such as (I'm guessing) the Woodie Awards are on that page as well. Lastly, would you consider a page such ace showbiz's page on My Chemical Romance awards a reliable source? It is where almost all their awards are listed and would be extremely helpful for me to reference to.

Thanks again!

Tobeisto (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Tobeisto

PS: As mentioned by MrMoustacheMM, yes I will change all of my references to wikipedia to other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobeisto (talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did miss-write; what I meant to say is that blogs are generally not allowed as sources. There can be an exception for news magazines/newspapers that have what they call "blogs" that are really just articles with comments at the bottom; Kerrang! probably meets that exception. However, don't the publish the actual results in the "magazine" itself?  It doesn't matter much, but it never hurts to go with the more "official" source, whatever that is.
 * As for what other awards don't belong on the list...I'm not exactly the best judge, because I would remove almost all of the awards which they were nominated for but did not win; the possible exception would be the Grammy nomination and any equivalent in other countries (possibly Kerrang). For example, I would even remove some that are already there, like being nominated are an MTV Asia video music award--that's simply not an important enough award (in my opinion) to be included if they didn't win.  As such, I would take out any MTV award that they did not win.  Woodie awards also seem unimportant to me, as do Shockwaves awards, TRL Awards, maybe others. Our goal in any article isn't to list every single detail about a subject, but rather to focus only on those with lasting, encyclopedic importance.
 * HAving said all of that...as I said, I'm probably not the best judge; I almost always want less content in musical articles than people intimately involved with them do. What I recommend doing is first, getting all of your sources in order and make a new edit request.  To make reading easier, at the start of each line, put an asterisk (*); this will make a bulleted list. Meanwhile, take a look at other similar bands, and see how many awards they have listed, and of what types.  Not just the one band that seems to have the most, but a good variety.  You can also ask for input at WP:Wikiproject Rock music, as they will probably have more expertise in the matter.  Then, if you think your additions will match those of other similar articles, but people still refuse to change, we can ask for outside opinions to try to achieve a wider consensus.  This is called dispute resolution, and I'd be happy to show you how to do that.  Apologies for not being so immediately helpful on the matter--I often find myself out of my league on music articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Rock music will get you to the rock music project. Cloveapple (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will visit that project!
 * So far what I have noticed is that if the band has received few awards/nominations, then their awards/nominations are displayed on their actual band page (as with MCR). However for bands such as Green Day, Muse, Led Zeppelin, etc. that have their own pages specifically for Awards and Nominations (with a "see also" section on the main page linking to this other page), there is virtually every award I've ever heard of and more listed. All the awards I've mentioned in my request appear on these pages. So - I don't know if you're the person to ask, but you've been very helpful! - what do you think about instead of putting the list on MCR's main page, I directly request that it becomes its own page? If you feel that I should ask this question elsewhere feel free to tell me, I won't be offended or anything! :) Tobeisto (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Tobeisto
 * If the consensus (either at the project or at the article) is that all of the awards are appropriate, I would definitely agree with creating a separate page; I've seen those before for actors, and it certainly makes the main article look much better. To decide if it's appropriate, ask the talk page--don't do it as an edit request, but just as a normal conversation. Then, if others agree, you can create the new page (you'll probably be autoconfirmed by then, so you should be able to create it directly).  Then, you would remove all of the awards from the main article, leaving just a link to the other article (I can show you how to do that).  I'm going to put the article on my watchlist just so that I can monitor the discussion and help as needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, again! I will wait to hear what other people say then. In the meantime, I will try to fix my sources! Tobeisto (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Tobeisto

Ali' article
Dear friend. I saw your comment on Islam talkpage. But I didn't understand on which section of the talkpage you need help. Tell me so I'll try to be helpful. thanks. --Aliwiki (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the offer of help. The main debate is currently occurring around the middle of the page, in the section Talk:Ali. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all sorry for late reply and secong thanks very much for informing about that original research. I reverted it now and I'll keep watching the article. Thanks again a lot for your accurate attention.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"I have no idea whether there was other bad behavior going on"
If you genuinely have no idea then you are blundering around with your eyes closed. Why blaze in if you don't fully understand the situation? Perhaps you would be good enough to explain why the following editor have received not so much as a warning for their behaviour?


 * User:Grapple_X
 * reverting without giving a sensible justification: ,
 * reverting with a false accusation of vandalism:
 * personal attacks: ,


 * User:RepublicanJacobite
 * reverting without giving a sensible justification:, ,
 * false accusations of vandalism:, , , ,


 * User:Harizotoh9
 * reverting without giving a sensible justification: ,
 * personal attacks:

Are they exempt from the rules? If so, why? If not, why have they not been sanctioned? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well...you are correct in that they should not have used the word vandalism. They should have reverted, sometimes under WP:V, sometimes under WP:NPOV, and eventually called the IP editor's changes (yours, I assume) disruptive and/or edit warring.  So, yes, the terminology was inappropriate.  However, calling an edit vandalism when it is not is about 18 steps lower on the incivility scale than calling someone a "fuckwit", "retard" or "brain damaged cunt".  So...yeah...while I might have been inclined to help, your extreme abusiveness just turns me off too much.  If you want these changes made, discuss them on the article talk page.  Civilly.  With solid reasons. And the assumption that even though others disagree with you, that doesn't mean they lack intelligence.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they should not have reverted. They never gave any sensible reason for doing so.  I did not add any unverified information, nor did I add any non-neutral material, so the two policies you quote do not apply.  Why don't you do some basic research before commenting?
 * In your edit summary, you said "i'm going to have to side with the person not using the term "brain damaged cunt"". Who is that person?  Would it be User:Grapple_X who called me a "fucking weasel" and an "ignorant little cunt"?  Would it be User: Harizotoh9 who thinks I am "mad"?  If not those two, then who, exactly, are you siding with?
 * I do not have to justify the edits I've been making on article talk pages. I always give reasons in my edit summaries, unlike the editors I named above.  None of my edits should have been controversial; none were in any way possible to describe as vandalism.  The fact that some were falsely and dishonestly labelled vandalism should show you that the problem here is anti-IP discrimination.  But you're part of that problem too, doing no research into the situation and blocking an IP address for alleged behaviour that you are perfectly happy to ignore from registered users. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any time you ever make edits that are reverted (for non-vandalizing reasons), there is a dispute, and that means you (just like anyone else) have to take it to the talk page. The fact that several different editors are reverting you is an indication that something is amiss. And it's not just IP-discrimination.  For example, your claims that the information you're moving from The Road (2009 film) are POV do show that you misunderstand WP:NPOV policy, because we are allowed to use non-neutral language so long as it is due and is attributed to someone else (i.e., not in "Wikipedia's voice").
 * I've just warned Grapple X (and you again, while I was at it) on Talk:Grapple X.
 * On Harizoth 9, you're misreading the comment, I believe: it's not saying "He [is] mad [i.e., crazy]." It's saying "He [is] mad [i.e., angry]." You're wrong on the "reverting without sensible justification" there as well.
 * On RepublicanJacobite, I've left xyr a message on xyr talkpage that, while it again asks that the word "Vandal" stop being used, still squarely puts the responsibility on you to discuss the issue on the talk page and to stop being far far more incivil. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't misunderstand NPOV. Yes, I know that non-neutral information can be valid if attributed.  Mortenson's comment contained no actual information and was just promo puffery.  The bit about Smit-McPhee basically said nothing more than "there were auditions and he got the part" but also said, in Wikipedia's voice, "he seemed youthful, innocent and yet wise beyond his years".  Again, it was basically just promo puffery that didn't add anything.  Removing this should not have been controversial.
 * I am glad you have now at least made a token effort to warn these people. Your tone in the warnings clearly assumes that they are in the right - kind of like "yes, I know we are part of a big fun team and this outsider is trying to ruin all our fun, and I know you think he's a twat and I do too, and hey, we all want him away from here, but let's at least make a token effort to follow the actual rules and not accuse him of something he's blatantly not doing".  Your failure to even consider that anyone else but me could be in the wrong shows your anti-IP bias.  Your justification of User:Harizotoh9 makes no sense.  You say "You're wrong on the "reverting without sensible justification" there as well".  So, you think "He mad" is a sensible justification?  That's the entirety of what he gave.  I think it's pathetic to revert while leaving what is clearly a personal attack, and you think that's not only not a personal attack but a sensible justification?  You're on another planet to me on that one.
 * I justify all my edits in summaries. The three users I have mentioned here have rarely even left edit summaries beyond automatic ones, and if they have it has often been things like "This again?", "He mad", and "Not a sound reason", all of which obviously fail to make the case for reverting.  And you say the responsibility is on me to discuss the issue on the talk page?  Whatever happened to their responsibility to justify their edits?  If they can't even be bothered to do so in edit summaries, why would I bother to start a talk page discussion? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyxrian, see User:RepublicanJacobite didn't initially call the guy a vandal, he provided an informative edit summary. To wit Not a sound reason for deleting sourced information., only later when the IP continued to edit war and had been abusive did he hit the Rollback Vandal button. The IP is selective in his diffs to claim persecution. You see this time and again with this guy, he has promised at ANI to stop the abuse and basically got away with block evasion and incivility, then continued as before. I would suggest this is raised at ANI again, the guy is not a benefit to the project and consuming a lot of resources in dealing with his abusive behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's the famous "rv IP edits" user. "Not a sound reason for deleting sourced information" is not informative.  I was removing POV.  Removing POV is obviously a sound reason.  201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

QX, this individual is a prolific block evading user who is on about his 7th or so ip address. He violated your block almost immediately, switching to another ip and continued to edit "The Road" film article. I reported the entire matter here. -OberRanks (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Way more that 7th I am sure. It changes without any prompting from me.  I could try to list them all somewhere, if you like.  201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, lots to respond to here. @WCM, I'm aware of the back-story now, though I didn't make the connection when I first got involved in blocking this person. @OberRanks: Yes, you are correct that this is block evasion.  How do we fix the problem, though? This isn't a single-purpose user, so even though I or someone else could semi-protect The Road (2009 film) and Reservoir Dogs, that wouldn't solve the problem.
 * @IP: I have to ask a few questions. First, on a technical note, why do you say "It changes without any prompting from me"? That seems to contradict your statement in this diff raised by WCM at ANI. And even if your IP does often change without your prompting, why would you think that makes it okay to evade your block?  Blocks aren't leveled against an account, they're against a person.  Are you saying that because you think the blocking reasons are invalid, that you don't have to abide by them?
 * But, regardless of that point, let me try to get us somewhere closer to a "solution". IP, what do you want?  What would be your ideal solution to this problem we seem to have?  If possible, please try to make the solution at least somewhat achievable: saying "Registered editors should treat IPs better" isn't a solution, because it's impossible to accomplish as it would require changing the attitudes of a large number of editors.  Specifically, are you asking for other editors to be warned or blocked?  Are you asking that we automatically defer to your opinions about how to interpret policies and guidelines?  Are you asking that you be exempt from WP:CIVIL, WP:EVADE, or WP:BRD?  Let's take a specific example--the Smit-McPhee removal.  After you removed it, and someone reverted you, what was supposed to happen next?  Are you saying it was up to RepublicanJacobite or others to start a talk page discussion?  Or are you simply saying that because you are so obviously correct no one should ever revert you?   Again, what do you want? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My IP changes without any prompting from me. I woke up this morning and found that I've got a new one.  It changes every day or two.  That comment was merely me being provocative.  I knew it would change soon anyway, and I felt like needling the people attacking me.
 * I've said before, though, that I don't really care about these blocks. They arise from a poisonous culture in which my sensible and productive edits are attacked and reverted, and I'm accused of vandalism, even, just because the edits come from an IP address.  False accusations are a disgusting, repugnant, baseless attack, and yet the people making them are generally not only not warned, not only not blocked, but actually encouraged to make these attacks.  Like I said, your own very soft warnings were left with a very matey back-slapping "this doesn't really matter but let's make a token effort not to make repulsive accusations" sort of tone.  You obviously didn't think it was a terribly serious matter.  I think it is, and it's happened to me time and time and time again.  The more it happens, the more pissed off I get.
 * What do I want, then? You asked a specific question and the answer to that is that what I removed was obviously biased, obviously promotional material that has no place in an encyclopaedia.  User:RepublicanJacobite previously objected, bizarrely, to me moving a citation from the middle of what it was citing to the end of what it was citing in Reservoir Dogs.  He's decided that he won't accept that and insists on the citation going in a ridiculous place.  I changed that back; he stalked my edits; he reverted without giving any sensible explanation, clearly because of who made the edit and not what the edit was.  What do you think should happen then?
 * More generally, yes, I want the culture to change. What happens these days is something new.  I've made anonymous edits for a long time, I've no idea how long.  At some point in the last year or so, this problem began.  Editors who lacked the ability to fully comprehend edits started reverting them with false accusations of vandalism.  No-one ever warns them, no-one ever blocks them, so their behaviour is condoned and encouraged.  Is it impossible to change this incipient attitude which combines laziness, arrogance, rudeness and stupidity?  If people like you never bother to do anything about such conduct, then yes, it will be. 190.46.108.162 (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, see under the headings Falklands War and Aggressive IP Editor, this is nothing to do with editors labelling good edits as vandalism. The pattern I've oberved with the guy is that this sometimes happens as he does in general make constructive edits. More often he decides that some sourced content is trivial or unimportant, another editor disagrees and reverts, often with a polite edit summary as to why. His response is abusive and confrontational, he edit wars to keep his changes and his edit summaries are less than civil. I am not surprised his edits are subsequently labelled as vandalism by editors of long standing such as Jacobite. His attitude is one which presumes his edits are so obviously correct and should never be reverted. I am of the opinion he has latched onto the vandalism label as a distraction tactic from blocks for incivility and evading those blocks. I also have a sneaking suspicion, as I commented at WP:ANI, that rather than a dynamic IP he is using an IP proxy to evade blocks. If he put the same effort into using the talk page as he does with his personal attacks we would see none of this drama but he appears to positively revel in being uncivil. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, etc.
Your point is taken and your message is appreciated. There comes a point where the refusal to discuss, the insistence upon seeing only one's own view, the utter intransigence seems to cross the line into vandalism, but your point is valid, and does not fall upon deaf ears. Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 07:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadasivan, redux
Here's an oddity. At Nair we had all those people coming in with yells and screams about that naughty Mr Sadasivan and his anti-Nair, Ezhava-centric Buddhist take on Kerala history. I've just taken a look at Samantha Kshatriya, a group with whom the POV-pushers at Nair claimed connections ... and, guess what? It is another very poor article but three of the five citations are to Sadasivan & appear to boost the image. Some people have a very selective opinion of sources! I will see if I can find an alternative, as I am also trying to do for the Nair article. - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be time to take it to RSN and see if the source deserves a general blanket ban on WP. I mean, yes, every source has to be evaluated in context, but the absolutely wrong context is "Well, this time he's right, so it's okay to use it."  Oh, and another wrong context is, "He's okay to use when he is saying positive things."  Probably best to quickly compile the specific objections in bullet form, and then get consensus from RSN to bring down the hammer.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am toying with that because I am actually reasonably content with him. Not 100% so because there are some clear discrepancies, but he's likely more good than bad. But that puts us back at making judgement calls.
 * BTW, I found an entry at Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (with the magic "EB" in the url, supposedly indicating that it has been checked by the editorial board) ... and it was without doubt completely wrong on a quite major issue relating to the alleged founder of Faisalabad. EB is already discouraged on tertiary grounds but it seems to be a regular in India-related articles. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't I withdraw my AfD for "Extraordinary Merry Christmas"?
I don't understand why you relisted this: I was the one who submitted the AfD request because there were no reliable sources for the episode title and a Redirect was inappropriate. When some became available—in particular, a press release from the network with the episode title, I made it quite clear in the text that I wanted to withdraw it. In fact, there is a DYK in process for the article, and all three people who commented beyond myself said Keep.

Please tell me how I can go about undoing my request, which has been obsolete for five days now. I would have done so sooner if I'd known how. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just let the AfD run it course. If the community is tending towards "Keep" then it will not be deleted. Obviously, if you have not yet added your own "Keep - nominator changing my mind due to ..." type of comment then do so. Seven days is the norm for an AfD, although sometimes it can be longer. It should not affect the DYK prospects in the long run, although it may delay the process for a few days. Maybe add a note at DYK to the effect that you were a bit quick on the AfD trigger and now think that all is ok - that should hopefully keep it hovering in the DYK pool until the discussion closes. - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did add the "keep" originally, once the reliable source for the title was available. I've just posted a comment in the relist, and will wait patiently for the AfD to run its course... and the first "Delete" has just shown up. Sigh. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to disagree with Sitush here, because I don't think DYK is going to promote an article undergoing a deletion discussion. And DYK can't wait until after the discussion, because it's limited to a certain number of days after creation. Unfortunately, I've just looked at the AfD, and noticed that Bwilkins has voted to delete the article, which usually means the AfD can't be withdrawn. I guess the best thing here is to simply be clear on the DYK nom that though an AfD is running, it's likely to be kept unless something significant changes (if I were to close it right now, I would close it as Keep despite Bwilkins reasonable delete vote).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen stuff hanging at DYK for several weeks. The cut-off seems to be when it is nominated, not when it moves into the pool proper.Well, that's my limited experience of the thing at any rate. Obviously, this is always the case for "specials" - eg: articles kept back for Christmas, Halloween etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are DYK articles over a month old that are finally getting approved, so I still have hope. My experience is limited, too (this is only my fourth DYK nomination); I've added a comment to the nomination bringing the AfD status up to date as you suggested. At the moment, there are 39 DYK nominations that have been checked and passed that are from earlier days from mine in the queue; given that 18 are posted daily, that's a two day window at least, and more are getting approved from those earlier days all the time. So I'm cautiously optimistic: if the AfD is still ongoing, I think there's a decent chance they'll wait until it closes, since the DYK has already checked out otherwise in terms of size and proper linking. How soon is a closure likely to be? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't understand--I thought you were talking about a DYK, not that you had already set one up. In that case as Sitush says, I think you're fine. The AfD will likely be closed a week from yesterday, and it probably won't be by me. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands
Hi there. I thought you might be interested in a proposal I've made, Binding RFCs. I think it could be used at the Senkaku Islands dispute, and it would serve as an interesting first, well, test case. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse the TL;DR of my comments there :) Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary Redirects
Can you fix these redirects? Rkellz made a redirect on the Tiger JK to JK (rapper) which wasn't necessary because he only did that because occasionally Tiger JK is just called JK among close friends. However, Tiger JK is the commonly used name for him. AsianManFreddie did the same thing with Jungle Entertainment by redirecting it to Jungle (record label) because sometimes they say Jungle instead of Jungle Entertainment in their songs. Thanks. Jae ₩on ( Deposit ) 20:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While the way these two people did the redirects (by moving then moving back) is wrong, there is nothing wrong with having these redirects. Per WP:REDIRECT, "redirects are cheap".  There's nothing wrong with having multiple different redirects to an article.  For example, even if only 1 person out of 100 types in "JK" and then sees the link to JK (rapper) and is taken to Tiger JK, then it's worth it.  If, at some point in the future, there is a different rapper named "JK", then we can consider doing something else with the redirect page.  But for now, there's no harm.  As long as a redirect isn't malicious (like if someone created the page Awful Korean rapper and redirected it to Tiger JK), there's usually no reason to delete it or prevent it from being created.  Occassionally, we do delete new redirects if they are extremely implausible (here, that would be something like Tyger JK as some sort of highly unlikely spelling mistake), but these seem plausible to me.  If you really really think they should be deleted, see WP:R, read the criteria, and then follow the instructions for creating a discussion on the deletions.  Personally, though, I don't think those criteria apply in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. Hopefully "Just Kidding" doesn't come looking for JK. Haha. Thanks for the explanation. Jae ₩on ( Deposit ) 03:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yadav reverts & promise to introduce new material
Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357 might be of interest re: Cultcontri, if you have not already seen it. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

137.204.148.73
Updated list of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

Note the new Wikiquette assistance case.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming
I do not spend a lot of time working with categories. Is the type of behaviour described at User_talk:Good_Olfactory usual? In particular, the lack of notification/discussion. At least with CSD of articles there seems usually to be some sort of notice, or is that just because I use Twinkle? - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually don't know how to do it either; and there's an ANI thread on the same issue (not about these renames but about the practice in general). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I've raised the issue there & mentioned that I've copied my query from here. I could do without the drama but when two unconnected people suddenly hit the same issue and don't know how it should be handled then perhaps it deserves some wider discussion. - Sitush (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ali article
Dear Qwyrxian, I am not a newcomer who jumps into the article immediately. I am the guy who developed most of the article several years ago. Please pay attention to the first sentence. ''Ali ibn Abitalib(...). His father's name was Abu Talib.'' is this a correct way to start the article. In addition the source of that sentence is primary. Also, there is a sentence which describes the issue in a better way and with better reference in the second paragraph. His father was Abu Talib and his mother was Fatima bint Asad. I removed the sentence because it is not important enough to mention in the first paragraph.

In the case of see also Nahj al-Balagha, there is a complete template below the picture which contains all of the related articles. So I moved the see also to the related section. Thank for watching the article and removing irrelevant editions ;-) -- Seyyed(t-c) 09:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. 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) 16:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Another editor
Hi Qwyrxian, I think I may need your counsel regarding Hrafn's renewed attacks of me. Apparently, I annoy him terribly. I have been working on the Ariel A. Roth article. He has joined the editing of the article but most of his work has been merely opposing my edits. He has become somewhat abusive as well. You can find most of the interaction between us at: Talk:Ariel A. Roth Thanks for your help. I will alert Hrafn's talk page about this note. Thanks in advance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label
I've been trying to help new user Flyspes understand how Wikipedia works. Flyspes got into an edit war, but I think that was from not understanding Wikipedia's confusing systems. (We've been talking at User talk:Flyspes and User talk:Cloveapple and I also answered an email when he or she couldn't figure out how to contact the other editors working on that article.

The other most recent edits also appear to be by a brand new editor, Oyvindf55.

Could you please help keep an eye on The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label and help walk the new editors through the process of working out a content dispute? Cloveapple (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put your talk, Flyspes' talk, and the article on my watchlist; I'm going to have very little time on WP today, though, so I won't be able to do the research needed to see what's happening; a quick glance at your talk and the AN3 report shows that both you and the other admin are getting through to the new user, and have managed to ameliorate some of the problems caused by Mike's editing style. Maybe he was okay here...but I've brought him to ANI before and am mostly convinced that his overall style of patrolling is damaging to our interaction with new users.  23:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. I tend to share your concerns about some of Mike's interactions. This one wasn't as clear cut as some I've seen earlier, but it also wasn't helping calm the situation down. Cloveapple (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Død Beverte fixed up-ish
Hello! Just wanted to let you know that I fixed up the Død Beverte page quite a bit (have a few edits you've suggested to go), I also found that book that you said you had trouble finding. I also found his full length album on multiple playlists of radio stations from around the country, which may help make him more credible because WP:MUSIC mentions national airplay. If you could please take a look when you get a chance I would much appreciate it! -BusyWikipedian (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your user page edits
As "Wikipedia" is a proper noun, I would leave it as an uppercase word for your user page section header: "Why Wikipedia". It's up to you, of course, but I can't imagine that the MOS directs that proper nouns be lowercased in section headers. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I totally did that on autopilot, after seeing the unneeded caps in the third section title.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat is miffed
See User_talk:Thisthat2011. I just knew that this was going to happen: go away for a bit and then come back to obfuscate. Exactly the same behaviour as happened on individual talk pages/articles etc. I'm not sure that they're aware of the absence of Zuggernaut or the block on Mango yet, and with the absence also of Nameisnotimportant, well, they ain't going to get much support. - Sitush (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that you made an error on how you described his topic ban; it's not indefinite (the indefinite part is about the block an admin should levy if TT2011 violates the ban). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did, and I have now apologised for that. I'd love it if TT took up the offers of mentorship because without that the entire situation is something of a time-bomb. Or maybe that is just the pessimist in me. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're completely right. There's no logic to thinking that simply sitting out from Wikipedia from a year is going to make someone better (with, perhaps, the exception if someone is going through an educational process, like a high school or college student, who might acquire a more appropriate perspective via outside influences).  Editing in one's native language may help, though it probably depends on the native language (I have a sneaking suspicion that the various Indian language articles on caste and religious issues are no better than our own, except that they may have more sources to rely on).  Wikipedia has an odd culture, and some people need help (mentorship) to get used to it.  I considered leaving a message telling TT2011 not to just "wait out" the topic ban, and that the ban would be re-instated following April if the same problems restart, but I didn't want to confuse the issue further now (or sound accusatory).  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

National Defense Authorization Act
Thank you for stepping in and brining some peace. Can you please close the Edit Warring Report I submitted earlier? Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now done so. Two notes for you, though.  First, please be careful when counting reverts--if an editor makes 2 edits in a row with no one else making an intervening edit, that counts as only 1 revert for the purposes of 3RR.  Second, the IP noted that xe intends to edit the article from both home and work, which means that later today we may well see a second IP with the same edits. If that happens, let me know and I'll either block the other IP as well or I'll semi-protect the page (though, if I'm not around, you can always re-report it to 3RRNB).  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the close, and for the notes. I noticed the 'I edit from home' comment as well, so I'll keep my eyes open.  I didn't do a great job of keeping myself out of the edit war, so I learned a lesson from that too.  Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tegan and Sara
If you had browsed the history of this article you would have seen that it is under attack by IP editors. In my haste to restore a reference I inadvertently restored some vandalism, so thanks for removing it. memphisto 14:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking back in the history, I see 4 instances of vandalism in the last week, and only another 2 in the 2 weeks before that. In my opinion, that's not enough to justify semi-protection.  If the problem gets worse, though, feel free to re-report it to WP:RFPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for your help. memphisto 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

About Kei car
Mr.choppers is doing obstinately incomprehensible edit. It seems that Mr.choppers thought that two fire trucks were introduced. Do you say nothing about this? DigitalShop78 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And how did you find that article? And why are you making the exact same mistake that the previous editor made?  Mr.choppers clearly stated that that was a mistake, but also further explained that his change was not done for that reason. Are you saying that if someone makes 1 mistake, that they are then forever forbidden from making changes on the same article?  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sophism. Mr.choppers should cancel Mr.choppers edit, if Mr.choppers accepted the mistake. Mr.choppers does not accept Mr.choppers mistake. DigitalShop78 (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're engaging in sophism. He said that the "firetrucks" thing is not why he made the edit. Do you want him to revert it, then redo the edit and put the correct reason? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Mr.choppers regarded Jimny and Delica as the fire truck, Mr.choppers performed strange edit. That edit was a mistake. Returning before Mr.choppers edit is right. And Mr.choppers does not understand Japanese language at all. Those who do not understand Japanese language are editing why? DigitalShop78 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn
"Incivil", "abusive" .... sort of sets a pattern. PiCo (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I don't really feel like searching through Hrafn's recent editing history, could you give me some diffs, or at least specific pages to look at? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Kitsch Article
Hi, I returned to the page on kitsch but saw that you'd reverted to the previous version of the page. You gave two reasons why: firstly, there was too much emphasis on the Greenberg article and secondly that there was too much of my own research, material/viewpoint.

As for your first objection, it may help you to know that I quoted from and referred to Greenberg's seminal essay on the subject. Currently the article has no proper references to any of Greenberg's work - by way of footnotes or page references. Ironically, the same essay from which I quote is mentioned and that is all. I find it obtuse, shall we say, that you would object to a properly referenced piece of writing which supports its commentary with quotations whilst being happy with a couple of lines which refers to the same material without commentary or any support - or providing your readers with the opportunity to find the material themselves, as I had even provided page references. On reviewing my insert for Greenberg, there is one place where I strayed into interpretative analysis over the issue of elitism. I stand by it but as it is interpretation and argument I would understand you removing that under your WP:OR rule.

As for the Adorno section, I assume that you are objecting to it because of your WP:OR rule. I'm re-reading what I wrote and I understand that it could appear as if it is just research and/or opinion - despite the lengthy quotations I offer. It's somewhat of a worry, however, that you changed the article back to a version which is pithy and in places contains serious factual errors. For example, your article currently says that Adorno says that 'art is supposed to be subjective'. Aside from the fact that Adorno didn't think that art was 'supposed to be' anything - a normative claim that he was challenging - Adorno says the following in Aesthetic Theory about the necessary transition into Modernism: 'The violence of the new, for which the name "experimental" was adopted, is not to be attributed to subjective convictions or the psychological character of the artist. When impulse can no longer find pre-established security in forms or content, productive artists are objectively compelled to experiment." AT: 30. I fail to see how it can be better to have textually supported analysis from someone who knows a great deal about the subject replaced with inaccurate information supplied by someone who evidently does not.

And just as an issue with the WP:OR policy. Let's assume that you reject my piece on the basis of the WP:OR rule (which I'm not suggesting is a bad rule as such, by the way). How do you know that what you already have displayed is not just opinion? Unless you yourself have a great deal of knowledge about the subject, I don't see how you could make an informed decision about which is the more appropriate entry. Furthermore, if you actually look at what's currently up on the page, about Adorno, there are no references, only information which people have to take on faith. Admittedly, I do not supply textual evidence for every claim I make; I could do, it would be a massive article. But what you currently have has much less justification and detail than what I offered. Just because what is currently there has the semblance of fact, it only has this semblance insofar as it is unsupported and does not show its analysis.

I'm not trying to pick an argument, although I am somewhat irritated as I spent some time writing the entry and referencing it properly. I would like to change it to a piece which is more suitable to wikipedia but I'm a little apprehensive if my work's just going to be replaced again. Please advise - with a mind to the fact that what you currently have is incorrect.

Zet2332 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best, first place to focus our attention is on the OR and POV. Looking back at your contribution, here is the first sentence that jumps out at me as being definitely unacceptable:

"It is hard to see Greenberg's view as anything other than elitist. It is a controversial issue whether or not culture and the avant-garde, at the time of writing, were synonymous. It is also controversial that the loss of the latter means the loss of the former. It is equally controversial that only the elite can or do champion the avant-garde. Regardless of these issues, it should also be noted that he is not clear, here, whether or not the loss of the avant-garde is due to the decline of the elite or that the elite has abandoned the avant-garde. These are not the same claims and its not clear that either follows from the other."
 * This statement is entirely your opinion--your analysis of Greenberg's view. The only way this would be acceptable would be if you wrote something like, "According to art critic X, Greenberg's view is "elitist" and "controversial" (+citation) Specifically, X says that Greenberg incorrectly aligns culture and the avant-garde, and because of this his analysis of kitsch is also questionable. (+citation)."  See, anytime we ever analyze, interpret, or provide opinions of a person's writing (etc.), that is a form of what Wikipedia calls original research.  I'm guessing, based on your additions and what you wrote above, that you're an academic, and thus may not be used to using OR in this way (I know I wasn't when I first started Wikipedia). In other words, the type of work that is usually required even of undergraduates in the academy (the looking at multiple sources, analyzing their quality or finding fault with their arguments, and the drawing of conclusions that merge multiple sources together or analyze one source in light of another) is, for Wikipedia, original research.  Basically, the only thing that can be in a Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable sources have already said (even then, we have to be careful not to implicitly do original research by implying connections where none are explicitly stated).
 * Regarding the imbalance, it's most likely (though not certainly) improper to give so much weight to Adorno. The governing principle here is WP:DUE (a part of the greater policy on maintaining a neutral point of view) which says that we have to represent sources and information in due weight to its importance in the real world.  Your version commits nearly 35% of the entire article's text to analysis of just Adorno.  Unless Adorno is widely considered by art critics/historians/academics to be the primary critical thinker on kitsch, this is far too much.  One way that that section can/must be made shorter is to remove the OR/POV there; for instance, a quick glance says to me that most of that section from "There are many ways to interpret Adorno here, all provocative" to "However, the value of high-art did not simply reside in some reified aesthetic value – it resides in its 'truth-content'" should be removed as OR, and possibly more of the section.
 * Having said all that, I think I can point to a way to fix the problem: If you want to talk about what Greenberg or Adorno said (exactly, literally, with no interpretation), use them as a reference. But for explaining them, analyzing their meanings and motives, etc., look to secondary sources that talk about what Greenberg and Adorno said.  Note that this approach is required whether or not a person has a strong academic knowledge of a particular subject--even experts are required to site sources to support their claims on WP.
 * Now, having said all that, I certainly am willing to believe you that the article as currently written is "wrong". Perhaps a better approach to fixing the problems would be to look at specific, individual points that are wrong (for example, your claim that Adorno said that "'art is supposed to be subjective'"), and fix those.  That way, if you work incrementally, other editors can review them along the way, and each point can be handled in turn.  Then, if some particular change crosses the line into OR/POV, you don't lose all of the work. You can, of course, attempt another massive revision, but please keep in mind what I've said above about what is and isn't okay in a WP article.
 * If you have questions, please feel free to ask. I don't at all feel like you were "picking an argument".  As I implied above, the difficulty you're having is one that is very common for academics editing Wikipedia, because it seems like it should be like academic work, even though, as an encyclopedia, it's not.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comedic journalism
Thanks Qwyrxian for your comments on copyright. We're the first of four classes at Canadian universities to join in a Wikimedia Foundation Eduction Project. Most of our students do not normally use Wikipedia and almost without exception are first time ysers/editors. We have had a largely negative welcome here so far, so your comments are both helpful but very positive and i thank you for that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.p.McKee (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could help at least a little. I'm following and commenting at the ANI decision, too.  To be honest, I think that the real fault here lies with the Wikimedia Foundation for pushing to get so many classes signed up to do Ambassador programs without ever actually making sure there was community support for the project.  I think that they simply fail to realize that "academic writing" and "encyclopedia writing" aren't the same; they can be compatible, but it's not obvious how.  Because of this, they don't understand just how much work needs to come long before students ever "set foot" in Wikipedia to actually know what is or isn't appropriate.  I think that both academics and college students can be great contributors (even if they're only doing it for a grade), as long as they're getting proper guidance.  I know that this class is drawing to a close, but, as I said, I'm still happy to help if you or your students need anything. I can't, of course, buck community processes (nor would I want to), but I'll try to at least explain them.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well said, Q. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India (peer review)
Hi, Hope you are doing well.

I had nominated the article Hyderabad, India for the peer review before proceeding for GA nomination, kindly provide your valuable advices and help out to reach the article with the status of GA and later FA. Regards, :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article
I am Koreans.English composition is inferior well.To be the contents that small MoReuGetGuYo and the page that PeJe made are never different what language is as do it that is similar, is hard.--Yswj700 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)help me

I'm completely different content than female rulers and title Deleted, what are the reasons? I've made it so hard to You mean not to use Wikipedia?--Yswj700 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find a korean editor later today or tomorrow, but I'm about to log off of Wikipedia soon. People had asked for you to be blocked from Wikipedia, but I decided not to. As long as you don't try to recreate that page or otherwise be disruptive, you can keep editing. I looked at both pages, and it seemed clear to me that they are both meant to cover the same topic: a list of women who, as a result of inheritance or marriage, were the ruler of a particular country. I don't see any difference in the purpose of your article compared to the other one.
 * While you are welcome to keep editing here as long as you can (that is, as long as your English is sufficient and you aren't disruptive), you may want to consider editing the [ko.wikipedia.org Korean Wikipedia], as that may be simpler for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

female monarchs of the world nations
I'll create will report back if you delete--Yswj700 (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you create that article I will delete it and block you. Period. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be helpful for you to undelete and move the article into his userspace
...and then have a Korean editor explain wikipedia policy, and advise him that it would be more productive to merge his forked article into the main article. Maybe. -Kai445 (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You could, however, use it to make suggestions to add to the currently existing article. Let me know--Yswj700 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC) what do you mean I make a new page, and contents are completely different.. please```add to the currently existing article--Yswj700 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I have to go now; I will be back on Wikipedia somewhere between 18 and 24 hours from now. I will try to help then, okay? For now, please don't create any new pages.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

female monarchs of the world nations`>>>>``list of female monarchs
--Yswj700 (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)I know that you created earlier title was changed?

ask for help
Dear admin; recently there is a problem in the article of Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism, between me (user Aliwiki and user Suenahrme) and we both agreed to have a neutral third party to intervene and judge. I kindly ask you to help us there. Since most of the comments are repeated several times, and we don't want to waste your valuable time, it would be enough to read just our last comments. Looking forward to see you there. Thanks in advannce; regards, --Aliwiki (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

From Mukta Sawant
Hi,im mukta sawant from india. I dont understand why u message me this way? did i said something wrong? V dont really know each other personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawant Mukta (talk • contribs)

Actually my name is Mukta (meaning perl in sanskrit) and my surname is Sawant ( actually its savant means expert or a wise person) point is both the accounts are mine. and one more thing who r u to judje should i on beyonce or not? i will talk on any topic which i want. i talk with those peoples who r intrested in beyonce not with u. (Muks (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

I m sory to talk with u that way. but what can i do if another person is talking with me about beyonce i was just replying him. i m sory (Muks (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

what do u want and pls stop thinking of my sefty the age i have mentioned is wrong. and plsstop deleating my page. and fuck ur page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawant Mukta (talk • contribs)
 * If you see this once your block is over...I never deleted your page, it was other admins...but the decision was correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School
I am not sure where you get four reverts but it takes two to edit war, if that's what you accuse me of doing. Threats aside, you are going against your own view that the Controversies section could be shortened. If you intend to go into details about the settlement or other details in cited articles you need to state the point of view of both sides to be balanced. You haven't been doing that. Case in point: You are willing to give full coverage to the ACLU's claims the school fostered homophobia, but are unwilling to cover the school's statement in the same article that it has taken steps to foster tolerance and diversity.68.4.61.51 (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Corona_del_Mar_High_School_-_Controversies_section

Were I not muzzled I would revert your last edit. It is contested whether the person referred to in (not "in" or appearing herself) the Facebook video was a "victim". Second, she was indeed the plaintiff, a Doe at first, then she agreed to reveal her name. The video is what she claimed gave her standing to sue as a plaintiff.68.4.61.51 (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think you're right--victim is too POV. I've changed it to more closely match the sources without actually copying them. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

female monarchs of the world nations
List of female rulers and title holders: the steward and the monarch was marked by wrapping it, to cut the alphabetical index notation by

female monarchs of the world nations = List of female monarchs: the world for all nations and all attempts to clean up, tied together only to notify only one sovereign will is dependent on a variety of literature. Try to understand. --Yswj700 (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think you might have to make and link to the merger?--Yswj700 (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

female monarchs
List of female rulers and title holders: by alphabetical index enumerates all rulers will place female monarchs of the world nations: by age in the country belonging to the women, each dynasty rulers are placed systematically organize. Therefore, can tell the difference. Other articles also included in this way, and if you guys got a taste similar. --Yswj700 (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I understand you correctly, you think there should be one article that organizes these women alphabetically (the current one), and another one that organizes them by country. Is that correct? If so, I have a few questions:


 * How do you recommend listing countries that no longer exist, or have changed names? Also, I assume you will be including all title holders, including those that aren't countries. In other words, I assume your list would include a section for Auxerre, Troyes], etc.?
 * How will you organize title holders that had title over more than one place (look at the current list and you'll see a lot of these)
 * How will you list places that changed between female and male rulers? Will you just skip over the times when they had a male ruler?


 * You can see how this is a bit complicated. Note that I haven't found a Korean speaker yet, but I've posted on a noticeboard looking for some help. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)