User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 30

Strayer University
Hi Qwyrxian, thanks for your feedback on my new draft of the Strayer University article. I've left a response to the comments and suggestions raised on the article's Talk page. Hopefully my reply answers any questions/concerns you had about the draft. --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'm fine with the new version. DGG mentioned wanting to make some edits; I've asked him if he is still planning to do that, or if that can be done after it's moved. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride, a question
Hi Qwyrxian, it has been sometime since I consulted you last. The Straight Pride article has undergone debate and edit warring, though not extensive over time. The article has undergone revisions, massive deletions and a few restorations. Matters have settled considerably of late. The incidents section is under scrutiny. I did not create the section but I have added several news incidents. One editor challenges the inclusion of reports that do not discuss "Straight Pride" as a topic. If an event is cited referencing the term "Straight Pride" but not any discussion of the term, that citation is considered inappropriate for the article. I am asking you to help my thinking on this.

The article is about the slogan, term and/or concept of "Straight Pride." News reports from various parts of the world make reference to "Straight Pride" events, see the Incidents section. However, the concept of "Straight Pride" is not discussed by the news reports. Most of the news reports deal with non-enduring news.


 * Question:

Can individual, otherwise unrelated, news reports (of a non-enduring nature) be used to show that "Straight Pride" events happen? Thanks for your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a pretty extensive set of discussions there, and significant difference in versions on the article. Let me have a day or three to try to sort through it. I do see some pretty experienced editors commenting there. One thing that should definitely happen is that people should stop edit warring on the content. I don't know if it's bad enough to need full protection, and I don't want to make such a decision without care; if you think protection will help, though, request it at WP:RFPP and another admin will review it. Just don't revert the article to your preferred version before doing that. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There seems to be an agreement not to do reverts, now. A few days should be okay. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Can I just get your opinion here? If you're okay with it, then I can just do the move myself. Silver seren C 03:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made one small change; the rest is fine by me. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Need Opinion: Recent removal of info in Yadav regarding Nepal
Qwyrxian: Thank you for your comments regarding sources of information on Yadavs in Nepal. I want to check with you regarding your view of It is available through JSTOR, in case you don't have access to JSTOR, I have temporarily placed it at http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ind/muslimsofnepal.pdf. Specially note "Muslims in Terai constitute 3.28 per cent out of their total 3.53 per cent representation in the whole of Nepal.Among the Terai caste/ethnic groups, they form the third largest group, coming only after the Tharus (6.46 per cent) and Yadavs (4.01 percent)"
 * Muslims of Nepal's Terai, Mollica Dastider, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 10 (Mar. 4-10, 2000), pp. 766-769.

Note that the population of Yadavs in Nepal is well known and is given in multiple sources, and is not really controversial. You will find it in Wikipedia itself in another article, CIA world factbook etc. Personally I have nothing to do with Yadavs, except that I have known several of them; it would be hard to miss them in North India. There are present in very large numbers in UP and Bihar, which are adjacent to Nepal, and play a major role in politics there.

Do let me know about your view of the Mollica Dastider article.Malaiya (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the other Wikipedia article I had mentioned: Demographics of Nepal See Ethnic groups.
 * Here is CIA FACTbook the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html

I await your opinion.Malaiya (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies--I did see your note; since it requires checking details in the reference, I haven't had time to get to it yet, but hope to investigate either tonight or tomorrow. Sorry for the delay (i've been handling just my minimal WP editing/watchlist checking the last few days). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Weird references error
This talk page edit by MatthewVanitas seems to have caused a Spanish/Portguese reference error to appear but I cannot work out why it should be so. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by adding a reflist where the references are, but I have no idea why that didn't show up until now, nor why it was in Spanish rather than English. However, I'm a big fan of just making things work right, and only trying to deeply solve them when necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I respond
I know that I am correct per policy, but I am unsure how to respond to this. Is "nutcase" acceptable? - Sitush (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Commented, warned. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My last edit 'Kurmi'
Greetings. Thanks for ur valuable feedback. wrt my edits i hope 'majority' has not become guiding factor for neutrality on wiki. wiki articles are used by many people across the world for various purposes. we should be as near to ref facts as possible. i am not pushing any thing. i just replaced vague unref sentence in lede with more balanced and properly ref facts. i have not put in a word of my own its all what ref say and also giving full picture including all POV. in fact some people are forcefully trying to keep shudra bit away from the article which is not understandable. r v trying to gain general consensus over not mentioning varna status in articles. r v moving towards removing everything negative while editing. it seems that editor who is claiming to have written most part of the article is pushing me to take back well ref content and even threatening to ban me if i do not do so. is this our neutrality policy. i fee sad.Jaychandra (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My last edit 'Kurmi'
Greetings. Thanks for ur valuable feedback. wrt my edits i hope 'majority' has not become guiding factor for neutrality on wiki. wiki articles are used by many people across the world for various purposes. we should be as near to ref facts as possible. i am not pushing any thing. i just replaced vague unref sentence in lede with more balanced and properly ref facts. i have not put in a word of my own its all what ref say and also giving full picture including all POV. in fact some people are forcefully trying to keep shudra bit away from the article which is not understandable. r v trying to gain general consensus over not mentioning varna status in articles. r v moving towards removing everything negative while editing. it seems that editor who is claiming to have written most part of the article is pushing me to take back well ref content and even threatening to ban me if i do not do so. is this our neutrality policy. i fee sad.Jaychandra (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion？
Hi, I'm a little confused...

Columbo broadcast history <--is this having a speedy deletion? Cause another admin removed the tag.

B3430715 (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for speedy deletion (something any user can do); another user (in this case, an admin) declined the speedy deletion as not sufficiently meeting the speedy deletion criteria (which you can see at WP:CSD; the one I specifically used was WP:CSD). I am currently discussing with the other admin (User:DGG) about what he thinks about a full deletion discussion. DGG has significantly different opinions about deletion than me, but I also value his guidance because he's a smart, long term user who has participated in more deletion discussions than probably any other currently active editor on Wikipedia.  The reason I think it should be deleted is that your creation of that article was in direct contradiction to the discussion at Talk:Columbo/Archive 1, where it was decided that that information doesn't even belong in the main article, much less in its own separate article.  You can't just avoid consensus and do things the way you want because you disagree. Instead, you need to try to overturn the previous consensus. I'm not sure if I will nominate it for deletion yet; I will let you know if I do. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Columbo broadcast history <--my points
 * one more question...how long it takes for a speed deletion?...you know, one might not have a chance to visit wiki every day...B3430715 (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article won't be speedily deleted, since another user has contested it (it can no longer be nominated for speedy deletion per policy, unless it were something weird like a copyright violation). As for how long it takes, speedy deletion is typically done in a few hours or less, though it can take up to a day.  The whole point is that speedy deletion is only for things that are so obvious that an objection wouldn't matter. That's why I actually don't mind that DGG declined it, because I think it was borderline for the criteria, and that's the whole reason at least 2 people, one of whom must be an admin, have to look at it first. And if something is speedily deleted and the creator later objects, then it's always possible to talk to the admin who deleted it afterwards, and if that doesn't work, there is a board you can go to make a further appeal.
 * I am probably not going to nominate the article for deletion, because I've found that the people who comment on list-based AfD's tend to be far more permissive than I am. I personally don't think that belongs in Wikipedia, because it's trivia, it's not encyclopedic, and falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. However, I am going to mark it as needing references. You'll need to find a reliable source for every single one of those dates, and any you can't find should be removed. I will give you plenty of time to do that (a few weeks, at least), but eventually, expect that all unsourced info will be removed.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Q., I left this on the article's talk page but I want you to see and consider it. I do not mean to offend, so please just take in the important facts: 'As an editor who has worked conscientiously on Columbo for many weeks, I will tell you right now: this article ought to be deleted. It's nothing more than the data that was rejected/removed from Columbo by consensus. To me, this is an example of the single-purpose disruptiveness of B3430715. To check this fact, I suggest a very old version of Columbo be examined.' Q., this editor wants several of these items back in Columbo but is aware they'd be deleted. He also knows there has been discussion about creating new Columbo-related articles. So he's doing a bit of Dr. Frankenstein work trying to sew a corpse together. And that contributes to WP how?— Djathink imacowboy  19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * HI, I come across this article, I'm not sure if you agrees or not, but to me, it is an Ad. Just see this result "The Impossible Murder", you'll find half of the results pointing to other things and not much reviews from India. B3430715 (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert X Browning
Hi there, Qwyrxian, I wanted to ask if you'd be willing to do a histmerge on the current Robert X. Browning article rewrite I'd proposed at W:CO-OP. (It also needs to be moved to Robert X Browning once that happens.) The last response from another editor I received was DGG saying "Ready to go" a week ago but, since then, there has been no further comment or action. Hope you can help. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll check it and merge/move later today if i have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All done! Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Although I almost hesitate to note: there are some outstanding issues; a couple of leftover items from the draft, and then for some reason the move didn't take. I left a follow-up note at CO-OP. Would you mind looking again? WWB Too (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to bother, but the categories still need to be enabled on the Robert X Browning article. Very minor, but I shouldn't be the one to do it. Would you mind? Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you around?
If you are around then please could you take a look at the recent history for: I don't think that you are involved in this one, but the cause of the semi-protection that put in place appears to be related to the same/similar anon contributor. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * List of Parkavakulam personalities
 * Parkavakulam
 * the talk pages for those two articles
 * User_talk:188.28.56.180
 * See the articles now. This should fix the problem. Well, I mean, once the IP address reverts again and I request them be blocked, then it will solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio has now semi'd the list for a fortnight and redirected it to the article. I am fairly sure that the IP is dynamic, so blocking may not achieve a great deal - they seem to be persistent. In any event, I had visited WP:3RRNB enough times already yesterday! - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP would appear to be back at Parkavakulam. Slightly different address but same ISP and geolocate. Can we semi-protect it, as with the list? - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Salvio has stepped in again. I rather thought this to be outside his usual editing times. Sorry to have bothered you. - Sitush (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem--I had this page open, and was about to do it, when I ended up talking to a colleague. By the time I came back, it was already done. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

COPS Shenanigans by 76.97.19.69, Again
Like a broken record, as soon as 76.97.19.69's block was lifted, he went right back and started reverting the COPS page again. Can you get this IP permanently banned this time? NECRAT Speak to me 09:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We never permanently block IPs, because even ones like this that seem stable may well be changed to another user in the future. So I blocked for 3 months this time. It's no big deal to deal with a little bit of disruption every few months. Next block will go up to 6 months. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you kind sir. Much appreciated. NECRAT Speak to me 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Strayer University Redux
Per WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_Editor_Help, Hamilton makes a good argument for why the 52% sentence should not be used. And, if it's removed, since that was the only sticking point, the draft would be ready for a histmerge with the mainspace article. Silver seren C 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:More footnotes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:More footnotes. 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) 01:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Question
OK. Let me clarify your point. Your questioned point is WP:RS? The Korea Herald is not relaible source ? Why?

WP:NEWSORG "News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"

--Y00tu (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But that does not mean that all newspaper articles are statements of fact. And that article is self-evidently not a statement of fact, because it takes as its position that Dokdo is obviously, unarguably, 100% Korean. It specifically positions itself as asking why the rest of the world even bothers with the discussion, since the decision is so obvious. That is not a piece of neutral journalism--it's advocacy. Now, that's fine, and the Korea Herald is more than welcome to do so. But that does not make the source suitable for Wikipedia. The only fact that can be stated about the "true" owner of the Liancourt Rocks is that there is no agreement who the true owner is.
 * But I am willing to accept that I may be wrong. If you want, I will gladly take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. If they accept that this is a valid expression of opinion, I am willing to include it in the article in the form that I mentioned on talk (i.e., specifically attributing it to KH as their opinion). Would you like me to ask there? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please learn more about WP and do not add Japan POV on the report article. The US. Govt. stance changed. Deleteing cureent stance is JPOV. It would be WP:OR. In any event, you have no reverted on that article 3 times in the last 24 hours. If you revert again, you will break WP:3RR. --Y00tu (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't put random warnings on people's pages. I've only made 1 revert in the last 24 hours. Second, your additions are absolutely, 100%, violations of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as has already been explained to you. It is not the Japanese POV to state exactly what the documents state. The larger info about US stance belongs in the articles about Liancourt Rocks--we don't just add additional commentary like that to every vaguely related article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Columbo and problems with User:B3430715
Q., in light of this I just wanted to reaffirm my warning to you about User:B3430715. He is edit warring at the main article also. I have warned him and the other editor involved. I'm not having this nightmare all over again, and B3 is provoking it.— Djathink imacowboy  03:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've issued a final warning. If he edit wars again, don't notify him--just come give me the article history in question. No need for you to have to worry about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Q., I thank you for this but I think it may have been a little misplaced. You should have put it on B3's talk (which I avoid usually, so I haven't checked). It'd be a great help if you went straight to Talk:Columbo so you can see the mess there. I am taking a break from Columbo and notified my colleague Rangoon11 already - and I think I announced at the article talk but I'll check on that again. By the way, if you haven't seen B3's reply to your post, you will now experience an example of his "I'm-so-innocent-I-cannot-fathom-what-you're-talking-about" routine, for which I instituted the closed ANI in the first place.— Djathink imacowboy  03:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Q., this was never done in defiance of your comment to me above, but before I knew it I had turned to someone who has offered help and has helped in the past, User:Sleddog116. I did it here but if you direct me to do so, I shall retract all that and place a 'never mind' to Sleddog. This is courtesy information I give to you for opinion. You may ignore it if you like. What I am doing is leaving a diff trail - not that anyone pays them any mind later whenever I present them .... — Djathink imacowboy  04:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In re: User:B3430715. I have been having a brief exchange with him just now. Typical examples of what he does, for your consideration:
 * 1) Pretence at not understanding what he's done.
 * 2) Evidence he simply ignores inconvenient issues.
 * 3) Disruptiveness (latest examples, mind you, not all of them by a longshot)2#Columbo_Episodes,.
 * 4) Now for article edits in contravention to your order (I didn't check the times, I'll just watch for more in future): look at the latest revisions by him here, they are all goofy edits and I'll say disruptive too.— Djathink imacowboy  04:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When consensus is reached on a talk page to remove information, then the information is removed. B3430715, you may not just unilaterally re-add that information. If you edit against clearly established consensus again, I will block you. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just, what are you talking about? What have I re-add? Admin, please tell me where it the Edit war? B3430715 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here, let me show you what we're talking about: I'd like you to see this. See, he hides a lot of these reversions under other reversions. I hope this isn't out of order, but I think he deserves a topic ban for a while. This post concludes my 'report' to you, Q.— Djathink imacowboy  04:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, admin, I'm sure that Djathinkimacowboy never really looked over what I did. You did better see this, then you'll know I improved what were inaccurateB3430715 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've looked over plenty of what he did over the last few weeks, and you'll see it too. Enough is enough. I wish you to see this diff in case B deletes the post. It is a warning for his unbridled personal attack and a threat. This I will not tolerate for a second, Q. My personal plead is that you block him. His fingers have been flying like lightning this morning. Did you note in B's last post, he showed you an old version of the page with rejected-by-consensus materials? As I think you know, he's now trying...with you... to create and keep a new article with all that junk in it. Yes...he thinks we are all that stupid.— Djathink imacowboy  05:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See my note to SledDog below. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Djathinkimacowboy
Hi, Qwyrxian - I got a request for help from User:Djathinkimacowboy on my talk page here. I see from the conversation above that Djathink has already informed you about it, but I thought I'd give you a little background. I've been sort of "mentoring" this editor for some time, and he seems to have taken some of my advice, but I think he still gets things blown out of proportion sometimes. Still, I want to help him as much as I can because as far as I can tell, he has the capacity to be a constructive editor. To make a long story short, he asked me for help - I'm not really sure what he wants me to do (even though I'd like to be, I'm not an admin yet); I gave him some advice, but I'm not sure how much good it will do. Could you take a look at my talk page (the link I provided above) and add any useful advice to what I already told him (or at least keep an eye on the discussion to see if there's anything else I could tell him)? Anything you could add would be useful. Thanks a lot. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies to you and Djathinkimacowboy, but I am going to be mostly off of Wikipedia for the next 48-72 hours. If I'm lucky, I'll have time to look into this in about 36 hours, but it may not be until after that. Normally I would recommend taking urgent issues to ANI, but that's probably a bad idea here given what happened last time. Instead, if you need admin action/analysis before I get back, try (either of you) asking User:Kim Dent-Brown; she gave some good advice to Djathinkimacowboy before after carefully analyzing B's edits at the time, and she may have more good insight here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited Strayer University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Whats next?
Hi Qwyrxian, I'm a participant of the dispute currently ongoing on the Sri Lanka article (Talk:Sri Lanka). This dispute has been ongoing for the past 6 months or so in many shapes and forms, yet the discussion is endless and our arguments have not been rebutted, only prolonged. This dispute has disrupted constructive editing of the article and the complete loss of its stability. There have been constant edit wars and page protections over this dispute as well as the harassment of other non involved editors who have come to help. The article appears to be held hostage. Myself and the User:Astronomyinertia, as well as many others, have had enough of these disruptions and are wondering what we need to do next in order to close this dispute once and for all? We are stuck in a dead end, there are only a couple of users still active in the discussion. We have called and carried out an RFC, but we do not know where to go from there and how to close it. Can you suggest to us what is next? Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very complicated question and issue. Give me a few days to look at it; I'm not sure if you want to bump up to the next DR level, or try something else...if you don't hear back from me in 4 days, send me a message to remind me; if I don't think I can get to it, I'll at least try to bring it to someone else who can. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Qwyrxian just wondering where you are on this issue so far?--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have an answer; I just don't have time to type it up right now. Ideally, w/in 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Food for thought
You are of course welcome, as are we all, to remove what you like from your talk page. All I have to say is, you should not have an admin position at all. Your behaviour was absolutely disgusting. May no editor be stupid enough to award you anything henceforth. You call this an insult, that's reason enough for you to pack it in. Your response made plenty of sense in its ugly hostility. And I did not fail to note your frankly stupid edit summary sneak attack. At least my edit summary had already been stated up-front on your talk page.— Djathink imacowboy  10:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to take the issue to WP:ANI. I will gladly explain my reasoning there, and accept censure if I acted inappropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No sir. See, that is exactly what I do not ever wish to do. Though it was contemptible of you overall, I was genuine in my feelings, and wanted you to have a token - a barnstar is the best and most deserved. That you would behave so furiously and inappropriately must have been the shock of all my time on Wikipedia. I don't want an ANI, damn it, I wanted the oposite.— Djathink imacowboy  11:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously though, using a "What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar" to deliver this rather insulting statement was none too cool:


 * "...Under recent circumstances, I think this speaks for itself. If not, let me thank you for giving me brilliant ideas via your advice for a long time now. How many others have come up with the brilliant idea of being patient, logical and fair in a crisis?!..."


 * Qwyrxian has always been pretty darn fair and thoughtful. Please express how upset you are in polite terms. You will not be dismissed. Instead you will be heard and respected for it.


 * So, please bury the hatchet and swap some bunnies or whatever. You're a good editor, and nobody wants you to be upset, including Q. Love and bunnies to both of you, and if you make up, i will send the best bunny picture at Wikipedia to both you and Ooh Bunnies also.


 * So please, think of the future. Think of Ooh Bunnies. Think of the bunnies themselves! Those lovely bunnies. So fluffy and soft, and squeezable in a Lennie sort of way.


 * Is this just a post to make you forget the argument by saying the word "bunnies" as many times as possible? Why yes. Yes it is. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, good God!Still being accused?! I apologise for my unwise method of trying to thank Qwyrxian for his past assistance. OK? And don't drag bunnies into this.— Djathink imacowboy  12:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Q.: All of this from now on is to show you my true good will. I apologise for the way that whole barnstar thing looked. I do not want this leaving some emotional aura for either of us, and I was inspired also by Anna. Your loss of temper is understandable; you know better than anyone I've lost it a lot in the past. You have always been fair and as agreeable as possible. Also, I apologise that I have been a thorn in your britches.— Djathink imacowboy  12:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Q., but Anna is no help and is deliberately, falsely accusing me. This in the event Anna decides to delete anything. Sorry if she's some kind of mate of yours, but I've asked her to stay out of this. Look at her post, go on - pure trouble.— Djathink imacowboy  13:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Djathinkimacowboy has been blocked for a month due to the same attitude on an unrelated issue (well, related, as its the issue xe was originally asking me to look at more carefully, but not directly related to this barnstar). But I still like bunnies! Thanks for the attempt to resolve this with less drama and more lightness. And, of course, you're welcome to comment here on any subject at any time.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

131.183.0.122
Please block 131.183.0.122 : continues disruptive edits and blanks talk page, including your note. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, having just started a big clean up of their most recent edits, which have the appearance of being mostly nationalist POV pushing related to the Kashmir dispute. It wouldn't be so bad if they at least replied on their talk page but they seem not to do so. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48 hours. If someone could update ani please (i'm almost out of time). Be careful when reverting his edits, though--some of them are correct (like removing Hindi script from Pakistan articles). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is actually simpler than it might first appear with regard to his script edits - the recent RfC for India-related stuff says no scripts in the lead etc. Therefore, I have not merely reverted but also removed. This applies to Jammu and Kashmir, as an Indian state. The other stuff is much more contentious and needs to be discussed either at a noticeboard or in a request to rename that particular article to Indian-Administered Kashmir, which appears to be the IP's preferred title. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the ANI thread, noting your block and referring to this 'ere thread. Sorry, but I was unaware of the thing until you mentioned it. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Persistent IP
IP continuing harrassment -, ,. Did you get my previous e-mail about indef protection? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow I missed that email (or missed that part of it). I've indefinitely protected your user page. Could you please write some sort of notice at the top of your page that politely explains that your page is protected so that IP editors cannot edit it due to ongoing harassment, and that they should contact the Help Desk if they have questions but can't reach you? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, just for safekeeping, can you indefintely semi-protect my other user pages: User talk:Whenaxis/Header and User:Whenaxis/Dispute resolution. They will likely strike there next when they find my talk page no longer accessible. And, RevDel the latest edits from the IP. Thanks, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done and done! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IP 209.188.16.122
Please block 209.188.16.122 for disruptive editing, as he/she continually inserts Hindi script for Pakistani articles (especially in Skardu and Gilgit pages) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willard84 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, why would I do that? You warned the user today, and, since you left that warning, they haven't repeated the behavior. The whole point behind issuing a warning is to change the person's behavior. We don't block as punishment. In any event, even if they did it again, that IP has only done the action 3 times so far (once on Skardu and twice on Gilgit, and one of the Gilgit ones was a month ago). That's not nearly enough of a problem to warrant a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible BLP/weight problems
I am off to bed but I have concerns about BLP and weight issues regarding Pratibha Patil. You are aware, I think, of just how many allegations of corruption etc are made against politicians in India, and the subject of this article is prone to partisan on-wiki attacks/favouritism. Is a semi worthwhile? I would open a discussion on the talk page but the contributors are mostly anons and, like I said, I really need some sleep. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And this charms me, from one of the pushers ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week for the PA. I'll watchlist the article...it look like there's quite a bit more that could be cleaned up there (a bunch of allegations that never turned into charges, or charges that were never litigated, or even failed litigation). Maybe next week I can take a look in detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up some of it recently and keep intending to return. - Sitush (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

K-pop
It's getting to be a bit much. I've started a thread on the NPOV noticeboard, Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and a GAR for Shinee, Talk:Shinee/GA2. Please have a look at the noticeboard. I've asked for semi-protection on two of the articles, but given that there's a lot of accounts that won't do much, even if it is granted instead of brushed aside as a content dispute. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer that I semi-protect the articles or that I start hacking and slashing out trivia and poorly sourced info? I probably shouldn't do both. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. 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) 02:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an experiment on democracy
Wikipedia is not an [experiment on democracy], [The Truth] Will be written on WP one way or the other. Distributor108 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it is not a democratic system. Rather, it is one based on consensus. And when everyone except for one person supports a specific position, that means consensus has been established. And I find it fascinating that you linked to that Truth page, though I wonder if you missed the top box that says that it's a humorous essay. In any event, you're barking up the wrong tree talking about "truth" to me: I don't even believe in big-T Truth (things that are always true regardless of perspective or interpretation). What will be written on Wikipedia, actually, is what is included in reliable sources, formatted and chosen according to our policies as interpreted by community consensus. Which is, well, the opposite of what you're trying to do on that article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

IP Blocked
Just curious as to the reason IP User:66.87.2.96 was blocked. Was he handing out phony "top 5%" Barnstars? I should have known better than to trust an IP!!!!! :~) ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a thread on ANI about this, at WP:ANI. There's no way for the IP to know who the top 5% of editors are in any given month (the "by month" list for # of edits hasn't been updated in over a year). It seems they're just picking people at random. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn Knackers!!!!! ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind
Do you remmeber this ?

Now can you check this current thread: Every comment there from User:Night of the Big Wind is focused or contains a sort of "criticism" on me, instead of keep focused on the topic. I will refrain from answer his "critics", but please keep an eye on this, because I do not want the same troubles I had in the past with the same User:Night of the Big Wind who seems so wishful to engage with me in personalized discussions that I do not want at all. -- ClaudioSantos ¿?  15:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are so funny, Claudio. Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact I don't have CS on my watchlist, but I do have Eugenics in the United States (and a lot of other euthanasia, eugenics and abortus related articles). But he shows the same pattern of ignoring consensus and cherrypicking of sources. For sure, he will get himself in trouble quickly enough... Night of the Big Wind  talk  00:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NotBW has been blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks. And I've reported CS to ANI for a permanent extension of the topic ban. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

HELP!
There are again users, and other IP users who keep on adding birthdays and trivias again in the Members section of U-KISS. I am deleting them from time to time but it keeps on coming back. I need your help please. jmarkfrancia (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just remembered that I've already acted as an editor on that article (removing the "titles"), so I can't re-protect it. I'll try to take a stronger editing stance, and then we can request RFPP when needed. The recent disruption isn't too frequent, so I'd rather wait until the problem is totally obvious. I'll look at the article in more detail tonight or tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India nominated for FA status.
Hi, Hope you are doing well, may you kindly look into this and advice, a User:Dipankan001 had nominated Hyderabad, India for FA here. Mean while I had notify other user for there advice. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should comment in the FAC immediately, because FAC's are often declined if they are not nominated by a regular editor of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Anon at Janjua Rajputs
User:115.167.45.128 looks likely to become a serial inserter of unsourced content at Janjua Rajputs & seem not to be communicating. Furthermore, per WP:COMMONNAME, that article should really be titled Janjua there because a redirect already existed at that title. Can you assist with these? Should it be moved to Janjua caste instead? - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given the IP a final warning and placed the article on my watch list. As for the title...do the sources generally use "Janjua Raputs", or just "Janjua"? I note that the very first sentence says that some of them claim to be Jat rather than Rajput; if that's true it seems to indicate a move somewhere. Since most of our caste articles are named "X" not "X caste", it seems like "Janjua" is the better name, but you should at least ask on the talk page if anyone has any other opinions.  If there is consensus for a move (or, if no one has any comments than you after a week or so), I can move it over the redirect. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do a Requested Move - keep things in order, etc. You spotted the elephant in the room! - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind
Hi there; this user has posted an unblock request following your block. I have looked at the thread and have to say that I am not certain that I would have blocked in the same situation. Would you care to review his request? Your call of course.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment there to provide more information. But, as I said, other admins are free to unblock, though it would help if you're familiar with the long-running dispute between these two to understand the wider context. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've declined the unblock. A user recently blocked for NPA should know how that edit might be interpreted, and their comment to their talk page after my decline (which could be read as a threat to Qwyrxian) reinforces my confidence in that decision.   7  04:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I considered leaving another comment there, but I think that anything I say, even if polite, will only add more fuel to the fire. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused
The article List of scandals in India usually gets 600-800 views per day but today it got 3378 views and still counting. No new scam has come to light in past 2-3 days, most of the Indian media isn't carrying out any report about scams. Then why a sudden jump in number of views, its almost 5 fold increase. Are these results manipulate-able ??--aryan wiki (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But numerically, it's actually an extremely small jump. You say there hasn't been anything particularly big in Indian media...but what about in the blogosphere, on Facebook, Twitter, etc. There are plenty of people with a large enough social media presence to bump up the number of views by 2500 in a few days. And they might not  even be doing it in English...and if it's being re-tweeted (or whatever), it could easily make that jump. I mean, even if some blogger just wrote something like "There's been a lot of scandals in India over the past few decades" and linked to the List article in that post, it would drive traffic our way.  I don't see any problematic editing on the article, so it should be okay...but watching closely never hurts. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Another assistance request, minor issue, edit war, tempest in a teapot?
Hi Qwyrxian,

I would like your advice on this section of the Joyce Banda talk page, especially near the end of the section, the recent posts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joyce_Banda#Numbering

There are two editors differing on the use of an ordinal number in the infobox. They kind of talk past each other and are determined to revert the other's edits. One editor adds the ordinal number and then the other removes it. We have considered a dispute resolution process, but it seems such a minor concern. Do you have any advice on the best next steps to follow? I view this as an academic question. What is done when a minor item becomes the focus of a persistent edit war? If they follow the revert rules, this could go on a long time. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, the solution is pretty clear: Mewulwe either needs to stop, or he'll be blocked. You can see my explanation on Mewulwe's talk page. In fact, this is often the case where there's edit warring over something small--it's because one editor is being tendentious, or asserting ownership, or is otherwise a problem. A simple example would be edit warring over what genre a particular song belongs to--it happens, but it almost always happens because the Band's Biggest Fan is adamant that their opinion is correct.
 * Take a look at tendentious editing. It's not a term I recommend that you use regularly, because it's a very serious criticism and, if misplaced, could backfire on you. But it's good to be able to spot it and bring it to the attention of other editors when needed. Mewulwe is textbook TE. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Need a Source"
"But to call attention to that fact, you need to cite a reliable source (otherwise it's WP:OR))"

I shouldn't have to find a source for that. Look what the Seven Deadly Sins' source is- it's not a source from the Bible, and I said that there was nothing in the Bible saying that there was Seven Deadly Sins. Why do I need a source? --96.242.163.228 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter that it's not in the Bible? Does any reliable source care about that matter? Or is it just your personal concern? That's what I mean by original research. I'm not saying you're wrong that it's not in the Bible--I'm saying that claiming its important enough to appear in the Bible is original research. However, if you find reliable sources that discuss the matter, then the point can be re-added. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Error in
Here, something went wrong in this snippet of text: "a period of 1 weekat of numbers from numerals to for ...". --Lambiam 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Assistance request
Hi Qwyrxian, as you might have seen from my note on the Paid Editor Help page a couple of weeks back, I've been working on a new draft of the article about EduCap, a student loan company that has been the focus of some criticism in recent years. DGG, who originally created the article by un-merging its content from elsewhere, has reviewed my draft several times and offered generally helpful suggestions, but following several rounds of edits, he seems reluctant to carry out a merge.

As you can see from Talk:EduCap, I've followed up his feedback with changes and considered responses, and I'm confident that the resulting draft is much superior to the live article. I've asked DGG if the draft is ready, but unfortunately he seemed to take my question as an attempt to impose a deadline. A week has passed, and he hasn't responded again.

FWIW, he has said that if another editor makes the merge, he'd then work on the article in live space. I figured that it might be time to get another opinion and, as you're able to make the histmerge that this would need, I thought to approach you first. Would you be willing to review the draft and consider carrying out the merge? I also plan to ask Silverseren for his input, though as a non-admin I realize he can't make the histmerge. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it in the next day or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Very cool, it's much appreciated. WWB Too (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your new version looks good, and looks like it has mostly met DGG's concerns (save for the request for more recent sources, since it appears that said sources don't exist). I'll do one final check and then histmerge tonight. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I just followed up on the EduCap page, but again I'd like to say: thank you very much for your assistance. And your suggestions for re-organizing the article a bit sound fine, I agree with your points. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hillcountries
Hi, there is a user, User talk:Hillcountries who is edit warring and vandalising articles and adding POV and information without references to back up his claims. I and a few other editors have have reverted them but he continues to edit war. I have warned him more than enough times, yet he continues, disregarding my warning as 'rubbish' and accusing me of 'POV pushing'. Can you please make him stop this disruption. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You look to be edit warring exactly as much as Hillcountries is. Additionally, you are misusing the word "vandalism", which has an extremely specific meaning on Wikipedia, which you need to review at WP:VANDAL. Calling someone who is editing in good faith a vandal is a personal attack. Please note that even if you are correct and Hillcountries is POV pushing, POV editing is explicitly listed as not vandalism. I am going to give the editor a more personal warning, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, normally I try not to edit war but it seems that I just got carried away this time. Ill make sure it won't happen in the future.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

MSU Research Questions
Hello, I am involved with a research project for Michigan State University and am wondering if you would be able to answer a few questions regarding tool sets on Wikipedia. What were the tools you mainly used prior to becoming an admin, and after becoming an admin? Here is a link to the project if you are interested United States Education Program/Courses/Wiki-Project Management (Jonathan Obar), and if you have any questions please let me know. Thanks! Ltezl (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

A YK clone
Have you seen this new article? I am glad that I was sat down when I did. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hillcountries's claim that king Vijaya was not Sinhalese
Hi, I have moved the discussion that was on User talk:Hillcountries to Talk:Prince Vijaya so it can reach a wider audience. Please continue commenting there. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent idea--thank you, Blacknight12. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

kurmi varna status
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Kurmi". Thank you. --Jaychandra (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Europe - Baltic
Hello Qwyrxian. I need to tell you why I restored my edit on Eastern Europe. Firstly, I am not party to whether the Baltic lands' inclusion within the Soviet state were an occupation but I know many sources including all close to post-Soviet regimes in those countries claim this to be the case. Ultimately, it is down to international law. In reality, even THAT solves nothing. Conflict only arises in the first place because there is a dispute. To that end, a true occupation is one that can be universally accepted beginning with the alleged occupier himself. I used the example of Austria-Hungary occupying Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, the pretext for this was a provision made at the Berlin Congress of the same year. So whilst Austria-Hungary fully administered the region, the land nominally remained de jure part of the Ottoman Empire. Once Austria-Hungary annexed it in 1908 sparking the Bosnian crisis, it became a disputed matter. Everyone knew that the action violated the terms of the treaty of 30 years prior but we here on Wikipedia have no business to deny the events or bestow labels upon the post-October 1908 governance. In April 1909 the treaty terms were amended by those with the power to apply such measures and that brought an end to that chapter. The disquiet that followed led to new horizons but that is irrelevant to the region's status. My point is that whether my version of the article is good or not, I don't know. My wording was chosen very much to reflect the widespread view that the Baltic states were occupied. I believe that it is wrong and one-sided to declare an emphatic occupied without so much as a sidenote to explain the full facts. As it is, it looks no different to the status of Iraq from 2003 when the U.S. and allies were present in the country. A reader with no knowledge might have believed that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuuania continued to have de jure borders with each other even if they were supervised by the occupiers, and that internal affairs continued but were monitored and subject to approval by the occupying force. It further denies the possibility of any role of Baltic figures in Soviet affairs. In actual fact, proponents of the "occupation" view delight in labelling the Baltic post-1940 administrations as "puppet regimes of Moscow". This is another avenue I do not go near. However, whatever they had in the Baltic countries, they had in all other Soviet Socialist Republics in addition to the Warsaw Pact states. A puppet-state is also something tha you cannot build from scratch, look at the history of every accused party and you'll find that they too were once repressed opponents of a a former regime, in other words, their positions were public but they lived dangerously. The 1920s saw many assassinations of communists by regime forces in states where Communists would later govern. What Moscow did in WWII and shortly after was propel these allies into power in their respective states; the point being that these figures were allies in the first place. Indeed, Lithuania's long-time leader Antanas Sniečkus himself observed the Bolshevik revolution and served as an agent for Moscow in his escapades during the 1920s and 30s; he can hardly be said to have done this by coercion when he landed in Lithuanian state prison so many times before the regime was ousted.

All of this evidently denies that the 1940-91 era was an occupation per se. It is a fact that proponents of this viewpoint dominate the articles but it is nothing that decent NPOV editing article by article cannot fix. I believe the issue is they may have been illegally annexed, that the installation of the SSRs did not comply with international conventions; this atleast you can cite even though it is not our job to play the lawyer. But "occupation" on its own sends a wrong message. I'm not going to revert a third time but I would appreciate your counter views. If you write here, I'll keep an eye for a while. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well...this all goes far beyond my expertise. My feeling is that if our article is called Occupation of Baltic States, and you're saying that's not NPOV, then you really need to start there to try to correct the problem. I don't like the idea that you can make an end-run around the main problem, by going to ancillary articles and getting them changed first. Another way of saying that is that if you can't get a consensus at the main article to change the name, then I don't think you should change it in other places. But I don't know enough about the actual topic to take a clear stand either way, so I'm not going to revert your change again myself. Thank you for letting me know, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as you can see, even I don't know very much. This is why when there are two opposing views, I try to list them both. The articles are split between those that recognise occupation and those annexation. Persons born in the place and time are presented with Latvian SSR, Soviet Union whilst other articles heavily stress an occupation theme. Nothing is perfect. Thanks for the quick reply and good faith demonstrated. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Can I just get your opinion here? If you're okay with it, then I can just do the move myself. Silver seren C 03:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made one small change; the rest is fine by me. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)