User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 31

Consensus
Hello again. Following from what I was saying earlier about Eastern Europe, this is to let you know that I have opened a talk section on a more appropriate article, even so after making an edit. I speak of Talk:Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1940). Either consensus will be reached or it won't. My edit was reverted again and once more I restored it but I am making that my final endeavour - I'm not actually into edit wars. What I will do though is invite the users to the section I've created and shall expect them to contribute, it would be unfair otherwise. Thanks for the advice earlier. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think you shouldn't have reverted to your version after a second person undid your edit...but as long as you stop now and take it to talk, then it's okay. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, twice is near the knuckle; my edit has since been modified and I am quite happy with that. Unfortunately these past hours I've noticed there is a lot of unsourced, POV and WP:OR editing going on. To be honest, this was a can of worms - the subject itself is poorly sourced, I've looked for both arguments and can find nothing beyond weblogs, forums and selective reports which are sympahetic with either one party or the other. No editor will achieve the neutral outlook all by himself so it might just be best that I follow your example and stand back on these things, as an admin you will know where I am coming from. Little do you realise when making an edit just how hard-hitting any backlash will be. WP is not perfect and sometimes we have to accept this! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I notice you dinged User talk:116.120.84.244 for vandalism. Really? Those changes look at a minimum to be good faith, if not actually an improvement (Seoul, South Korea is generally regarded as more correct than Seoul, Korea). Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know--that was 100% my mistake. When I looked at the edit, I saw every line becoming "South Korea". I didn't look at what was being changed. We've had people on the beauty contest pages before falsely replace entries with whatever person from their home country they liked. But I should have paid more attention and noticed that that was just a specification of the venue. I've self-reverted, struck my warning, and apologized to the IP. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Linking from Google
Do you know about the Google Doodles? They link to the search results page for that topic, which results in high numbers of people clicking on the term they wouldn't normally look up. I was considering putting in a sentence/link to Google Doodle article in case people mis-understood or weren't familiar with the phenomenon, as you showed. I'll do that now, but maybe you could make it more understandable after I (or someone else) add it into the High traffic template. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that does make more sense. Okay, feel free to re-add. I don't know if it's all that necessary now; my understanding is that the main purpose of "high traffic" is to warn other editors to expect a flood of people adding info, not familiar w/WP policies, and that happened a while ago...but adding it is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yea, I remembered after seeing the Earth Day Google Doodle, but after discussing with another editor, I think I won't be adding them after the effect has happened. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Pratibha patil
I think removal of the whole controversy section was unwarranted, given that there were 3 relevant reference links which clearly showed the controversial nature of the points. All of those were very widely covered by national media. I'm restoring one of the points now. I will make a note of it in Talk page too and I intend to add a few more points later with more references. Mrs. Patil's Presidential stint had lots of controversies, and its unprecedented. The article is incomplete without a controversy section.--Anoopkn (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted before seeing this note. The stuff had also been removed a few weeks ago. Off to the talk page we go, WP:BLP already fed into the copy buffer. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Get Smart!
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Get Smart!. 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) 03:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Distributor108
That was a heck of an effort with them that I was hoping would get some change in their behavior. Wish it could have worked, but I don't think there was anything more you could have done beyond pulling out some mind-control ray. There is no denying their passion for the subject, but the blinders they refuse to remove are really causing problems. I'm just hoping there won't be any socks appearing, although I suspect those will be fairly easy to spot. You did everything possible and more to help them. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA violation
You issued a formal warning to Oncenawhile on January 15, 2012, here. He's violated the 1RR restriction by making the same reversion here and less than an hour later here. I'm not requesting anything in particular, just letting you know in case you might want to give him a wake-up since he appears to edit almost exclusively in the ARBPIA area. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just noticed that it has already been sent to AE here. Sorry about the double report. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI
I notice that after you closed the ANI on User:완젬스 another editor modified the thread. It's probably no biggie, but I considered reverting on principle. Then I reconsidered because I'm not sure of the protocol in that respect. Just thought I'd let you know. El duderino (abides) 06:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On things like deletion discussions or RfA's, or RfCs that require a formal closure, adding comments after the closure is a problem and should generally be reverted. On ANI threads, it depends on how much after the fact it is and how long the comments continue. In this case, since it was less than 20 minutes later, I don't think it's much of a big deal. In fact, if a sudden consensus arose that I closed too quickly, my closure could even be legitimately reverted...though I don't see that happening in this case. If you had reverted, it would have been no big deal as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India
Hi, Recently we had gone through lot of corrections and additions at Hyderabad, India. May you kindly spare some time to advice for more corrections and copy editing if required. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Cla68
Qwyrxian,

SOAP is one of the exceptions your talking about. User pages are not to be used for advertising, I removed his advertisement, that's the only change I've made to his page. You didn't put it back in, did you ? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 11:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely reverted your improper altering of another editors user page. Again, please read the ANI discussion; you cannot unilaterally declare that your reading of policy is correct when many other editors disagree with you. If consensus should decide it should go, then it should be removed by whoever summarizes that discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian,   Policy is already in place to handle advertising. Policy trumps consensus. (example, someone committs a BLP violation and consensus is that it stays, it would still be removed because policy trumps consensus. Further Jimbo himself has weighed in on this issue | here.

As far as my "reading" of policy goes, I admit I've heard that line before,  far as I'm concerned, it says what it says, that advertising is not permitted. (I guess I'm what you call a literal reader :) )  I won't revert you, but I will ask that you revert yourself as policy is already in place for this kind of thing, and it does trump consensus. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 12:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is wrong and you are wrong. Policy prohibits people from advertising things unrelated to Wikipedia. Cla68's declaration is no different than someone giving a link to their blog. And if you want an example of where Jimbo is wrong, he insists that paid editing is against Wikipedia rules, that it's always been against Wikipedia rules, that almost everyone agrees with this except for a vocal minority, despite the fact that RfC's with hundreds of participants have shown a slight majority in favor of allowing paid editing so long as it is done within the confines of our other policies. Jimbo has been asked repeatedly to point out where in policy paid editing is forbidden, and he simply sidesteps the issue saying that it doesn't matter because it's always been true and everyone who matters knows that. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Jimbo's wrong and I'm wrong, but you're right ?   Not so sure about that.  either way, policy already forbids advertising.  So we already have a policy in place that says no to it, and policy trumps consensus. SO tell me again how you're right ?

@-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons► Moon Base Alpha -@ 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a policy that forbids advertising unrelated to Wikipedia. Additionally, in practice, hundreds of good, respected editors have links to their blogs, companies, etc. Those are considered to be acceptable, because they're not unreasonable or excessive. As you may recall, policy is a codification of existing practices, and per WP:BEANS, is often intentionally imprecise. By analogy, there is no question that providing a link to a company on that company's WP page increases traffic to their page, and that providing unbalanced product information (info only on already notable companies) clearly commercially benefits those companies compared to start-up or non-inner circle companies; yet, our encyclopedic mission clearly trumps our rejection of advertising and makes both of those things permissible. I Of course, I haven't read ANI yet this morning, and so, will accept consensus on this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Poltergeist?
This page is on my watchlist, so I was astonished to see this. According to what I see, their user talk access has not been restored. Am I missing something?  Tide  rolls  23:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the block setting correctly. It should be fixed now. Thanks for noticign. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Oda Mari (talk) 07:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

saying, hi...
sorry, i want to know the basic rules of posting in here, you have reverting some of my posts on JNU, they did not have references to blogs. if you could clarify and let me know the rules. i will be obliged. Sakalyan (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you re-added the blog on mistake when you reverted; this edit added a link to http://www.ourwingss.blogspot.in/, which is not allowed per policies. Regarding the neutrality issue, take a look at the cultural section now; I've done my best to clean up the section, removing details about most recent performances (we don't provide that type of information, as we are not a newspaper), and removing claims of greatness from several of the groups. Let me know if that helps. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks,Sakalyan (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussions
Hi, I am currently in a few discussions: Talk:Sinhalese New Year and Talk:Prince Vijaya, I have commented and waited for a reply but I have not received one, for either discussion, for a over a week. Is it safe to assume that we can close these discussions?--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion at the New Year page appears to have had no respondents, so I believe you are safe making changes to the article as needed. If someone reverts you, try not to revert again right away--instead, leave a note on their user talk, directing them to the talk page, then if they don't show up again in a few days (and especially if you see that they've edited in the interim), revert back and tell them that the onus is on them to discuss the issue (i'll monitor it, but I'm still only somewhat available). There's no need to formally close the discussion, but you have given sufficient time for others to respond and, since they haven't, are perfectly justified in presuming there is a silent consensus (of course, should later objections be raised, you'll want to go back into discussion mode). The discussion on Prince Vijaya also seems dead, but it appears that the article currently reflects your and SriSuren's preferred version, so no need to do anything further there. Should Hillcountries suddenly come back and start reverting, he'll be looking at rapid warnings and or blocks again unless he returns to the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your stepping in to comment on the GPG discussion page, earlier this week. As I said in my single response, I'm certainly open to verified, neutral additions to that article as much as any other, however that didn't seem to be the editor's actual goal. Anyway, thanks again. And if I can be helpful to you at some point in the future, please let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree...though what with the several large discussions running right now regarding advertising and paid editing, who knows what "the community" will decide for the future. I still wouldn't be surprised to see Jimbo or someone else come out and block every COI editor asking for help at the Cooperation Wikiproject. Hopefully, though, everyone will actually, you know, cooperate and see that properly declared paid editing is beneficial, not harmful, to Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. 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) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Question from new user
Hello Dear, You recently removed my Email from TariButtar's talk page. Dear, I am very new to Wikipedia(But not to Article writing). I have to ask too much questions and the Wiki help pages are too long to read. That's why i asked for help of someone expert. Now, Is there any way of getting live help from Editors or Experts ? Thanks and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.215.28.80 (talk) 08:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can ask at WP:Help desk (just click the link) if you have specific questions. You're also welcome to ask me here if you like; I've been actively editing Wikipedia for almost 2 years, and I'm one of Wikipedia's admins, so I (allegedly) have a pretty firm grasp on our policies and procedures. If I don't know the answers, I should at least be able to track down someone who does. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What you say?
Hello, thanks for your last edit on my talk page. As you'r an admin and much experienced, I need your advice, should I give, a person asking for my contact, my email? If not then why? Answer here! TariButtar (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I recommend against it. There's no reason why someone who needs help with Wikipedia needs to do it off-site. In fact, it's better for it to be on site so that other users can comment, there's a long term record, etc. Also, if you look in the history, that sure doesn't look like a normal email address to me--something much more promotional, in fact. I am happy to help here, and you can help as well, but I personally don't give out my email address. Of course, a registered use can use the "Email this user" function; however, I'll point out that when people email me that way, I generally respond on wiki, unless I already trust the person or there's a privacy issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hi Qwyrxian, Again your help is needed. I made the request for the username change last week but still I'm not able to login with new username. How would I know when it is ready? or Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks Calderysfrance (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I'm not sure why the response is taking awhile. There are only a few users who have the technical ability to do username changes; I'll ask one of them if there's a reason for not processing the request. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks

Calderysfrance (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Qwyrxian,finally the username has changed and I made some editing to calderys page in order to get rid of orphan tag. Could you please have a look and tell me if it is corrent and also what else could be done to improve the article. Also, history of calderys that was already there but after I tried to improve it by adding citations, someone removed it. Now, I'm adding it again. It would be great if you could have a look at that also.

Thanks Shobhitindia (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking in. The edit you made to Imerys was good, and a helpful addition. The one you made to RHI AG, however, was not. We don't generally list competitors in articles on companies, because it basically just looks like an advertising attempt. Plus, it leads to endless fighting about who is a "real" competitor" and who is not. I'm going to revert that edit.
 * Regarding the history, the problem isn't with it being cited, it's that it was basically a direct copy of the Calderys website. That site is copyrighted. As such, we cannot copy information from it without violating copyright laws. Now, it is possible for Calderys to "donate" the text, which basically means that it would go into the public domain (or CC-BY-SA licensing), but that would mean anyone, anywhere could use it, copy it, and re-publish it, and most companies don't want to do that. In any event, that wouldn't be a good solution anyway, because the format for the info you added isn't really good practice. As a general rule, we don't include timelines in articles (many have them, but they shouldn't). As an encyclopedia, we want prose information. Furthermore, we don't want to report on everything on a company's website (i.e., all of the things that they think are important). For example, a company history of Calderys should probably start with a sentence like, "Calderys was formed in 2005 by the merger of Plibrico International & Lafarge Refractories." We would not include information about their acquisitions, unless that information acquisition had been important enough to be covered in independent sources (newspapers, trade journals, etc., and note that press releases don't count). Yes, there many articles that include more than this, but that's basically because there are a lot of Wikipedia articles that need to be better written. And yes, there are legitimate exceptions--reasons why we might include more info. For example, if Calderys's predecessors were themselves notable businesses, then it would be worthwhile to talk about them in more detail. What I recommend doing is trying to work out a prose summary of the history, and trying to find independent sources to verify that information. You may want to work in a personal sandbox (that's a sub-page of your userpage you can use to prepare material gradually over time before introducing it into the main article); to create that, just click on "My sandbox", which is at the very upper right of your window, to the right of "My talk". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Caste sanctions
Hey Q, Can you take a look at Iyengar, Vadakalai and Thenkalai and see if they need to be placed on discretionary sanctions? I was away when this was discussed at AN so I'm not up to speed on the process. The latter two are subsects of the former and the articles are essentially a long running (at least a few years) edit war between the two groups. I've protected in the past and last year I'd also asked a few uninvolved editors to take a look at cleaning up the mess, but it didn't work. I've full-protected the second now while Slakr full-protected the first article. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, either later today or tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added to Iyengar and Vadakalai with some explanations. I don't see any recent disputes on Thenkalai, so I'll leave it off for now. Technically any caste-related article can be tagged, but the basic agreement at the community discussion is that we would tag only when needed (in my opinion, so as not to "brand" all of the articles as necessarily bad...even though a large portion of them are). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've been the only admin to have this page on my watchlist for a couple of years I think, so I'm struggling to make sense of the mess. The extent I've gotten to so far is that the content is about the Vadakalai-Thenkalai superiority/inferiority within the Iyengar caste and apparently that content is important only on two of the three pages and I've responded to complaints on the talk page at AN3 etc, but I can't seem to get anyone of the people involved to follow even the first step in a DR process. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Message
22:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Kim Curtis
Hello Qwyrxian. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your change on the Kimberly Curtis page. I was representing her views as her own and didn't suggest there was a controversy that needed coverage from NYT, WSJ, etc. I know you were trying to be helpful, so if you have suggestions for format or its inclusion, I'll be actively checking the talk page. Otherwise, feel free to contact me directly. Best regards, DietFoodstamp (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Noozgroop
Hi! You recently blocked User:Noozgroop for a short period after this ANI thread. I'm not sure if this edit is a sign that the user has ignored all that they were told, so i was wondering what your opinion was. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's generally inappropriate to block for edits from 2 weeks ago. I am going to leave a direct question on Noozgroop's talk page, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The changes are to match the formatting used elsewhere in the article, to wit:

In 1961, the American League reached the West Coast with the Los Angeles Angels expansion team, and the major league season was extended from 154 games to 162.

In 2001, Barry Bonds established the current record of 73 home runs in a single season.

The game is played on a field whose primary boundaries, the foul lines, extend forward from home plate at 45-degree angles.

The 90-degree area within the foul lines is referred to as fair territory; the 270-degree area outside them is foul territory.

The baseball is about the size of an adult's fist, around 9 inches (23 centimeters) in circumference.

Bats used by adults are typically around 34 inches (86 centimeters) long, and not longer than 42 inches (106 centimeters).

While the dimensions of the infield are specifically regulated, the only constraint on outfield size and shape for professional teams following the rules of Major League and Minor League Baseball is that fields built or remodeled since June 1, 1958, must have a minimum distance of 325 feet (99 m) from home plate to the fences in left and right field and 400 feet (122 m) to center.

Major league teams often skirt even this rule. For example, at Minute Maid Park, which became the home of the Houston Astros in 2000, the Crawford Boxes in left field are only 315 feet (96 m) from home plate.

There are no rules at all that address the height of fences or other structures at the edge of the outfield. The most famously idiosyncratic outfield boundary is the left-field wall at Boston's Fenway Park, in use since 1912: the Green Monster is 310 feet (94 m) from home plate down the line and 37 feet (11 m) tall.

The absence of a standardized field affects not only how particular games play out, but the nature of team rosters and players' statistical records. For example, hitting a fly ball 330 feet (100 m) into right field might result in an easy catch on the warning track at one park, and a home run at another.

On the other hand, the percentage of American sports fans polled who named baseball as their favorite sport was 16%, compared to pro football at 31%. In 1985, the respective figures were pro football 24%, baseball 23%.

While in the preceding two decades, MLB attendance grew by 50 percent and revenue nearly tripled, the comparable NPB figures were stagnant. There are concerns that MLB's growing interest in acquiring star Japanese players will hurt the game in their home country.

By early in the 20th century, intercollegiate baseball was Japan's leading sport.

The American Film Institute's selection of the ten best sports movies includes The Pride of the Yankees at number 3 and Bull Durham (1988) at number 5. Noozgroop (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)noozgroop


 * Looking at that, in the last sentence, 3 needs to become "three", 5 needs to become "five". The rule says that numbers from zero to nine must be spelled out, two digit numbers can go either way if they're expressed in one or two words (so, we could change "31%" to "thirty one percent", though I personally wouldn't), and larger numbers are written in figures. Do you understand and are you willing to follow those rules? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentences I quoted were not my edits. I made my edits to match the style of the article, using a few existing article samples as reference. For example, changing "ninety-foot" to "90-foot" and "twenty-five-man team" (which is hard to read) to "25-man team." I quoted the above sentences to show that my edits matched the article's style, which used numbers for the majority of the article. Noozgroop (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)noozgroop
 * Now I see understand what you mean. So in this case, your edits were to make the article consistent with itself on a matter the MOS gives discretion on. If you had said this in your edit summary--something like "Make number formatting consistent"--then I think this would have not been questioned. The problem was your past history, the fact that, as far as I know, you've never committed to following the MOS, and the misleading (unintentional I assume) edit summary made it look like you were making arbitrary changes to suit your preference. Thank you for your explanation; I consider the matter appropriately solved; in the future, try to use more descriptive edit summaries. To be honest, until its clear that you've got policy down, it might even be beneficial to propose any such word to numeral changes on the article talk page first and then wait a few days before making the change, just to be sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Old article in user space
See User talk:Chekavar. That contributor has been trying to reinstate an old version at Chekavar & I went to leave an explanatory note about the need to discuss on their talk page and found that page consisted solely of the same crap. I think that I would be safe to blank it or to move it to a sandbox ... but since I am also reverting them on the article itself, well, it probably is not a good idea for me to do the same in their userspace. - Sitush (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved the talk page to a sub-page, tagged it and the user page as being userspace drafts (and comented out cats, etc.), left an explanation of the moves on the new user talk, and explained why the changes to the article are a problem. I directed xyr to the article talk page. Of course, my expectation is that we'll just see more edit warring; I'll add the article to my watchlist, and we can take actions later as appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Saya no Uta
I saw you had removed the section I made. As you provided ample arguments for doing so, I guess it cannot be helped. However, while my sources were bad, I still considered my info to be more reliable than the reference-lacking material that much of the article (such as the Plot) is composed of. As it stands now, I'm almost getting the impression that 'no references' = 'better than bad references'. I'd say that's wrong, but I'd also like to read your opinion on it (not implying you support the idea). Sky380 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, there's two different kinds of information in articles about media (movies, books, video games, etc.). The first is "fact", in the sense of "What is in the book (etc.)?" Plot, characters, etc. fall into this category. Information of this type is sourced to the book (etc.) itself. So long as the information is something that everyone would agree on, just by watching/reading the material, without any specialized knowledge (like literary history, etc.). If two people dispute information in this category (because it's not clear for some reason), then it generally moves into category two.  The second category is any type of interpretation, including what something "means", what it's inspiration or legacy is, or determining what "really happened" if the plot is ambiguous. The section you added was comprised entirely of interpretation. All interpretation must be sourced to reliable sources, because interpreting something is a form of what Wikipedia calls original research. This key distinction separates the two different types of citations needed. I hope that helps explain why I removed the Interpretations section but not the Plot (etc.) section. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving a throughout explanation. I'll keep this in mind and try to be more focused in the future. Sky380 (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valued
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

TB
I have commented at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 11 May 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)


 * I am looking forward to your opinion. Malaiya (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Walter Mignolo
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 "Walter Mignolo". Thank you. DietFoodstamp (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Yadav protection
FYI, I have sent Yadav to WP:RFPP for semi-protection. We have gone quite a while without semi on the article but the problems are simply not going away. It only came off a six month protection in March. If a period of semi achieves nothing on this occasion, I will be tempted to ask for indefinite protection. - Sitush (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, well. EdJ decided that it warranted three years. I am not complaining! - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That simplifies things; I figure if you're going to go 3 years, might as well go indef, but it's practically the same. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 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) 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- MST ☆ R  (Chat Me!) 14:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Chauhan
I may be able to resolve a big chunk of the Chauhan/Rajput/Gurjar palaver, on which you have commented here. I have raised the possibility of introducing a source at Talk:Rajput. If accepted/no objections, then it will be a trivial matter to develop/refine the content of a series of articles, including those related to Chauhan and Gurjar. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent rever of the Tokyo Two edit
When you reverted my entire edit for Tokyo Two|Talk you wrote in the talk page that "I didn't get past the first two paragraphs of the lead before I had to revert it" (Qwyrxian) indicating you didn't really read my entire edit before you got trigger happy about reverting. Obviously I'm none too happy.

About making my edits piecemeal. I might be conducive to this though it's additional work. I believe you owe me an indication of which parts of my edit seem palatable.

You have stated: "We don't balance out a story of established facts by stuffing it full of the principals' POV" This is kind of vague, but if I understand you correctly, are you saying that since Greenpeace is the "principal" in the matter, and since they act under a certain point of view, ergo, everything they present as facts is automatically radioactive POV?

This is exactly one of the points I tabled for discussion in the talk page. In particular, I wanted to discuss the use of Greenpeaces's "star witness"'s testimony as material evidence. I've made a specific in the talk page, which you probably missed, that this informant is no longer just a Greenpeace shill, becasue he was also independently interviewed by Australian TV (see clip at one of the already cited sources in the article, ) where "Kujira-san" gives statements like "500-600 kg" of meat were being embezzled. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Block evasion. lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Your perspective would be valued
The infobox for Clint Eastwood does not list any of his "partners" (as it is referred to in Wiki infoboxes for actors), only his legal spouses. Eastwood had children with three women that he was not married to (one daughter with Roxanne Tunis; one son and one daughter with Jacelyn Reeves; and one daughter Frances Fisher). All seven of his children are listed in the infobox, and his two legal spouses are listed. This seems to be very ambiguous because someone who looks at this page is likely to think that all of Eastwood's children are from only two mothers, when they are from five. He also lived with Sondra Locke for 14 years without marrying, and she is not mentioned in the infobox either. All four of these women should be in the infobox, right? I request your help because another editor, User:Micro2, does not agree and has removed partners from the infobox every time someone adds the names in there. 131.239.63.5 (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment in Religion in Africa
Hi, can you end my Rfc in Religion in Africa. I will take issue further in noticeboard probably. Thank you. 174.89.249.171 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your block of Badmachnine...
...Just dropping by to say "well done"; FWIW, in my opinion, it was time he was blocked and I'm glad you saw to it. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Burden for Blub Paradox
I am protesting as per the BURDEN policy, which mentions "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." - and FYI, here's my citation for Blub Paradox - http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:S3PgsGGkWf8J:scholar.google.com/+blub+programmer&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Kgashok (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Per the consensus at AN/I, I have unblocked User:Badmachine; please see my comments there. For the record I think you were 100% correct to block, especially given the facts known at the time (history of trolling, serious potential BLP violations, etc.) but the question as to whether to leave him blocked was a different one, and it appeared to me there was very little support for doing that. 28bytes (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Noooo.....i had been intending to unblock myself, but can only edit during lunchtime while in my place of work. Now, i am in serious danger. This morning, members of the GNAA made it clear off-wiki that they were aware of what was happening here--i.e., the either fired a warning shot or were engaging in the first step of a broader campaign. Now, I can say I was intending to unblock to make the implied harassment stop, but i don't know if i will be believed. why can't people let an ANI unblock discussion run for 24 hours in non-obvious cases? why the rush? I'll point out that no one even notified me of the discussion, nor did anyone consult me first.


 * I will leave the message on his talk page, and pray pray pray that the group accepts it in sincerity. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You should indeed have been notified... I apologize for not noticing you hadn't been, and I'll take the trout for the speed of it as well. I'm not at all thrilled about the idea of you being targeted by trolls, and the notion that you were planning to unblock more in order to avoid their wrath than out of the merits of unblocking upsets me, frankly. I'm going to speak with some people privately about this. 28bytes (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, nothing bad was actually done to me, yet (that I know of). I was simply, shall we say, informed of the presence of the GNAA (I won't say how, because I don't know how many different methods they tried so no need to tell them which one succeeded). I may well be overreacting; in part, what's operating here is my fear over their reputation, more than any actual action or promise of action. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've got mail. 28bytes (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article size
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article size. 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) 06:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on Cyprus
Dear Qwyrxian, you told me to ask you help but I hoped I could deal with the Greek editors directly as we are all supposed to be grown up people. As I have failed in achieving that interaction, I recognise I need admin help. Please see the recent changes of the article here: and the Talk Page (esp. Section "Eurasian island country?").

Summary: Consense reached that "Cyprus" is in the Eastern Mediterranean sea in the lead). But when it comes to the Infobox it is in the "EU". Also the box -instead of "Cyprus"- says "Cyprus (including the North)".

Is this article's title "Cyprus (including the North)"? This situation is funny and does not help WP to be a "good" encyclopedia, f.e. like the Britannica. (See its Cyprus article and you will understand what I mean and my worries better.) Also please see the other EU member countries' articles in WP. Standardisation is not required in WP articles' infobox formats"?

My outright rejected (IMO only because of the contributor, if not why?) edition, for the Infobox: "Cyprus in in the Eastern Mediterranean.The Republic of Cyprus is in the EU."

FYI: The TRNC is not in the EU, right? "Cyprus" includes its north, south, east, west... right? So what is the discussion about? IMO: Some cannot accept that a Turk finds the solution...

All the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * He's starting again with the hostile edit-summaries (this is clearly a jab aimed at me), while these speak for themselves , and this is simply unbelievable .  Any help would be greatly appreciated, this guy simply won't stop. Athenean (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk to "me" Athenean. Don't say "he". Say "you". Talk to me, I am not your enemy, I am another editor in the same WP. Discuss things. Although not directly toward me you just made a shy step here. Continue in that direction. We have a common language: English. Interact. I will not take you to ANI or anywhere, I simply wanted to make you feel that this attitude is childish... --E4024 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the patronizing comments above, the taunting goes on, wrapped in an outer layer of feigned politeness with its "please"s and all the best"s to be sure, but the insult is there all the same. Note how he switches from discussing the content to my "problems" for no reason whatsoever.  It is my distinct impression that trying to discuss content issues with this user is simply futile. He immediately gets personal at the first turn.  Athenean (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First turn. It was slightly refreshing to have to deal with Turkish POV rather than Greek POV for once, but that refreshment is long over. CMD (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Athenean, in my above Request for Assistance your name is not mentioned. The link I have provided there barely includes your name in the recent changes to the article in question. Please calm down. It is Content, not Contributor...--E4024 (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone. Just to let you know, I am a bit ill right now, and so it's going to be at least several days before I can even consider looking at something this complicated. I recommend that if anyone thinks anyone else is behaving so badly that they need to be blocked, try WP:ANI. If you see this primarily as a content issue, take it to WP:DRN. Sorry. I'll try to look in again later. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wish you get well soon. Nothing that cannot wait and never more important than health. Sorry for disturbing you. My best wishes...--E4024 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U comment
So you're perfectly fine with letting Agent repost the same accusations over and over again when they are disproved earlier in violation of SOAPBOX and NOTAFORUM? I marvel at your insight in giving him more stage to poison Wikipedia. Please reconsider your re-opening of that section as it's obvious that his repetition of the same arguments and claims, when refuted, is not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that all he's commenting on is his own RfC/U. If this were part of a larger discussion on policy (for example, the MMA nobility policies themselves), then it might be appropriate to hat his comments, though it should basically never be done by someone who is opposing his stance. In this case, his action of repeating himself (if you are correct--I haven't actually been keeping up on the details lately) would itself be evidence of an inability to communicate properly. But you hatting it, especially with an incivil collapse note, was inappropriate. Let the RfC/U run. Let uninvolved editors comment. If they don't, then let someone uninvolved close it (if they want to). It's not just there for you to fight every single comment he makes. NOTFORUM and SOAPBOX don't apply there, because he isn't disrupting Wikipedia in any way--he's merely trying to defend himself from what he believes is an inappropriate attack on his character. Whether he's right or wrong on that count is exactly what the RfC/U is supposed to help us determine. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

IP at Shenzhen
The IP you reverted at Shenzhen belongs to an IP range (supposedly originating from Maharasthra, India) that has been up to such activity for months. I raised this issue at SPI, but the case was closed because part of this IP range's problematic edits involve adding a spam link, which has since been blacklisted. But, that of course, is not even half the problem. Of more serious concern is the consistent addition of unsourced, WikiTravel-like text to various mainland Chinese cities. Loveshirley, whom I think is the master, has been warned on this but has kept silent and not changed xer behaviour. If you could take some time to investigate and act, that would be great. GotR Talk 07:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, there's 3 basic ranges there, though 1 of the ranges is just 1 IP (112.93.112.91), so I'll assume that's just an anomaly. The IP's that start with 27 fall into a /20 range: 27.36.112.0/20, which could effect up to 4096 users. the IP's that start within a /19 range: 14.214.64.0/19, which could effect up to 8192 users. That's not an unreasonable number to block. If the problem is continuing, let me know; we'll still need a checkuser's help to see if there would be too much collateral damage from trying a dual set of range blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for finally responding. Yes, unfortunately the problem has resumed with vengeance. It astounds me how this person has been able to switch an IP with every new city edit. GotR Talk 09:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed this. Let me ask a checkuser. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull
If I recall correctly, the current consensus at Red Bull is that the sources we have support both as being the inventor of the drink. Please go to Talk:Red Bull and discuss which sources you believe state otherwise. Wikipedia requires that all information be verified by reliable sources, not just what individual editors think. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I can even agree with the idea of "support both as being the inventor of the drink", but, you are forcing the - false- idea that it was created by (1)Dietrich Mateschitz and (2)Chaleo Yoovidhya. That is false, presuming that you are not the only reliable, unquestionable, source shaping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsamenezes (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The current sources already support the fact that you have a distorted view about the subject, besides the fact that you think the truth belongs to your opinion. And It is obvious that the other person reverting my changes is your buddy. You can block me anytime you want. It won't stop me to help people have accurate and unbiased information.

--Rsamenezes (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Lastly, discussion and a humble attitude to accept that you're not right on everything doesn't belong to your dictionary, which explains your need to silence others, blocking them. Communist style. --Rsamenezes (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India PR
Hi, today I had nominated (here) for the PR of Hyderabad, India. kindly update if you have any concerns related to improve the article. Regards.:)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

GS/Caste
GS/Caste. To log actions related to the sanctions. Feel free to modify, I created a barebones starting page. I'm inform Salvio, Q, Boing and Blade as I know they've been doing some actions, feel free to inform others. I've also noted this on the main sanctions page as a log of actions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion on Subhas Chandra Bose ("Early life" section)
You deleted my insertion on the above article. Please note that my insertion was the only quoted one on the Subhas's "Early life" section. The information (that I reinserted again) are relevant information concerning Subhas's close relatives with citations. The information that I inserted are correct: please don't delete again! Thank you--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But I did just revert again: scribd is a document sharing site, meaning that anyone can upload anything, and that, by definition, uploads are very often copyright violations. Thus, scribd will never ever be a reliable source. Now, if you want, you can re-add the info, but cite it to the actual source, and don't provide a link to scribd. The best thing to do would be to use the template, but if you don't know how, just get all of the info into the ref: author, book title, publisher, and year of publishing. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope you want to avoid an edit war by deleting for the third time what I had inserted. The only quoted information in the entire section are those that I have inserted. Otherwise we should delete the entire section because it gives information without citation of sources! So please don't delete again.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway I consulted and added the citation of the original book of Sarkar's biography and I inserted it in the references. I hope that now all is OK for you!--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this time. Not RS. I am also not sure what you tried to do in Notes section of that article–with so long notes. can you break the Ref section in two ref groups– citation and notes and add longer notes in "Notes" ref group.. -- Tito Dutta  ✉  16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Titodutta I don't understand.. I have only inserted 2 notes on this section. The notes was referred to documents inserted on "scribid" web site. Qwyrxian ask to insert citations from the original book. Now I have inserted it in the references another citation related to the original Sarkar's biography book and you deleted..--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the note 24 (with the news of Subhas deat). The other "long notes" are not mine!--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued in Subhas Chandra Bose talk page!--Cornelius383 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Excessive user rights
How can still have Reviewer status, given the problems noted on their talk page? Sure, they seem now to be an infrequent contributor but their latest contribution is a truly appalling copyvio, with a "get out clause" in the edit summary. I have reverted it but am unsure of what might be the most appropriate forum to query their Rewviewer status. Any ideas? Hopefully, it is not WP:ANI, because I am once again featuring a little too often there. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because reviewer status no longer means anything. That's the status that was necessary to approve an edit made by a new/IP user when Pending Changes was being used. Since that is currently not implemented, Reviewer status means nothing. Previously, some editors have said, "Well, if that's the case, no one should have reviewer status", and the consensus is it might be used in the future, so stripping everyone's rights and starting anew was a waste of time. At the same time, others have said, "This is a bad user, so we should strip their reviewer rights", and the consensus then was "the right does nothing now, so there's no real reason to strip it." Both of these solutions sound fine for me--but if PC is turned back on, we should consider stripping them from people whose edits we no longer trust. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I had committed the sin of confusing Reviewer with Autopatrolled. D'oh! - Sitush (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ezhavas
I have asked Blade if they could intervene at List of Ezhavas - will be quicker than RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any edits from me in the last 250, so that's uninvolved enough for me, so I went ahead and protected. Did I do major work there before? Seriously I can't remember at all which articles I've edited and which are on my watchlist for other reasons. I still won't block anyone for caste related stuff, but protecting articles is far less problematic, I think. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You've had a fair amount of involvement with Ezhava, although probably mostly on the talk page. I just thought it might have been less controversial if it came from someone who has no connection at all. Plus, Blade tends to look through the history as an outsider and then impose quite lengthy periods of protection - think months, rather than a week. The IP will be back, I am sure of it. Meanwhile, over at Chaurasia there is a need for semi while an SPI is dealt with - I asked Regentspark to do that one but they may now be offline. Feel free ;) BTW, I still use WP:RFPP quite regularly, but sometimes it gets so backlogged that it is easier just to find a willing person. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian - Request for you to moderate Trance music page
Roux is going on a rant again. He's stalking my editing again. Many of these topics were discussed like a year ago, and the crap from this page was removed. I've looked at the actual source he refers to, and the problem is, the source material actually doesn't SUPPORT the claim in the writing on Wikipedia. In this instance, back when I removed all of the false claims, the editor (Roux), I believe is trying to use the source to support the original theories in his his research ie. Original Research.Danceking5 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'll note on the ANI report about you, I've just recommended that you be blocked. So, I'm not really the person you should be asking for help. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I deleted the original content from the Monty Hall page. My bad. Truce? gadfly1974 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Elen of the Roads
It would seem that a gang has shown up on Elen's talk page, and I'm not so fond of the some of the accusations being thrown around. Since you were witness to the beginning of these events, it might be helpful if you observed the current situation. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;   &copy;  23:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:The need for coordination. 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) 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with sockpuppeteering
Hi there, Approximately three years ago, a user, appeared on British India related pages, and made a peculiar kind of POV edit. He was later banned for sockpuppeteering. Well, I have a feeling that he has reappeared in the form of and I've compiled some evidence (such as I can while traveling) on Talk:British_Raj. I wonder if you might have the time (and the interest) to look into this in more detail. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)