User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 35

Bhati
I wonder if you'd mind keeping an eye on Bhati, and perhaps acting if necessary. We've had a registered editor adding unsourced material (with puffery), and after I reverted we've now had an IP adding similar material sourced to unacceptable sources - I've commented on the Talk page. (I'm winding down towards a Wikibreak, so I won't be able to spend much time on it or any India-related articles) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll watch. I haven't edited that page yet, so I can still act (borderline, but probably okay...I don't think I'm automatically involved in all caste-articles). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and yep, I'm sure you're OK re WP:Involved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

MrIndustry
How do you mark it as a draft because he clearly has not?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's Userspace draft, which I've added to the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
I have a message for you on User talk:Ghajinidetails  ---zeeyanketu  talk to me 02:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Gurukkal brahmins
Hi. Your reversion of Torchiest's tag removal at Gurukkal brahmins recreated a 2008 copyedit category, disrupting our backlog elimination efforts. There's no point copy editing an article when it's prodded -- likely a wasted effort. The tags reappeared when User:Iyar reverted to his own version dated 3 July 2009. I suggest that if the PROD fails, you might wish to restore the article either to the 3 July 2012 version by User:Qetuth or the 24 June 2012 (02:39) version by you. Regards. --Stfg (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that there was a second intervening edit. I've reverted to the stub, and reprodded. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I had a quick look on Google too, and I agree with the prod. --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I would have reverted what was done just now, but your edit summary mentioned a copyvio and I don't know where that was. Best, --Stfg (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Something to tell
I'd like to let you know that I replied to your comment on Pedro III's talk page. But most importantly: I'd like to warn you that I'm going to ignore Walrasiad. I'm not going to do that because I believe his arguments are better but because I know him from other previous discussions and I know that he can only argue by insulting and threatening others. Months ago I opened a move request on John VI of Portugal. After awhile an administrator came and closed the move request and moved it, against Walrasiad's wishes. Instead of going to talk to the administrator and later opening a move review, he went to the ANI and insulted the administrator, me and several other editors, asking us to be blocked. Before that I tried to find a common ground (see here) and my attempt of reconciliation was met with this: "''Lecen, are you proposing that I sell out the integrity of Wikipedia, or else you'll give me a headache? Take possession of articles? Or else? In case you haven't noticed Lecen, I don't much appreciate your gangland tactics. So you now realize your bullying methods - manipulation, personal attacks, baseless accusations, attempted blocks, etc. - do not intimidate me. So now you want to detach the point of strongest resistance, bribe me off with a side-deal, so you can focus your fire on harassing and bullying the other editors? Just what kind of person do you take me for? To my shame, I have allowed my honor to be tattered in this affair, but I still have some left. Take your disgraceful, dirty deal and get out of my sight.''" Since I want to avoid an sterile discussion, or worse, a bad environment, I will ignore him. --Lecen (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine; there's no need for everyone to reply to each other. What matters is that you all figure out the most commonly used name in sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, if I see that kind of talk, I'll warn and/or block the offending editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Range block
Sorry, didn't make myself clear. As far as I could see, only two IPs from that range ever edited that article, and between them they only made three edits in ten days, with the last edit being nearly a week ago.

I would not advocate blocking the range on that basis. Just block any problematic IPs - there's a reasonable amount of legitimate traffic on there as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked it; I'll watchlist the article in question and, for now, block socks as they come, though if it persists for a long period of time, I may have to consider other options. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AFC review
Hi. Can you please review this article, which I have submitted for creation, as there is a long que of more than 800 articles in AFC review?-Rayabhari (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that I can't do. It's not fair to the other 800 people in the cue to jump yours ahead. There's no rush, right? I still have to try to go back and review the other ones you left me, when i have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Caste
Would you like to weigh in (even if very briefly) in this RfC on Caste. Your experience on Wikipedia will be very helpful. The RfC link is: Talk:Caste

I have invited three other editors and announced my intention to do so here. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You should make up your mind
You're arguing people who are supporting the move but carefully ignoring the ones who are opposing it. You must decide wether you are a neutral observer or someone who opposes the move. I know that you opposes it but you can not act like an administrator and pretend that you're neutral wyhen you clearly aren't. --Lecen (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That particular comment just caught my eye as exactly the sort of comment that lead me to the non consensus decision last time. If at all possible, I would prefer that this discussion produce a clear guideline compliant result. I really, honestly, truly don't care if the result is Keep (Peter) or Move (Pedro). I know that I cannot offer persuasive evidence, but I haven't even actually read the article yet. Other than being a king of Portugal, and thus connected with the previous Portugeuse imperial system and the Empire of Brazil, I don't know anything about this subject. What I do know about is Wikipedia guidelines, and the fact that many editors don't understand how to handle discussions of this type. Your initial approach was actually correct, it just happened to have flawed data. Seriously, I'm begging you here: you're the self-proclaimed expert. You should know the data better than anyone else. What are the top 10 serious, scholarly sources for this subject, and what term(s) do they use? What terms do quality tertiary sources uses? If you do a survey of all high quality books and academic journals that cover the subject, what percentage use each term? On each of these, pay more attention to recent results (say, the past 20 years or so), but don't necessarily ignore all older results. If you can answer these two questions definitively, then you will be a lot closer to knowing what the article title should be. Until you can answer that, you can't know what the title should be, because that is how Wikipedia (is supposed to) decide article titles. Really, I'm trying to help you out here--if your intuition about the names is correct, then I'm trying to give you every tool possible to prove it while also keeping the discussion from becoming derailed like last time. Necrothesp's comment actually hurts your argument, not helps it. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your view on User:Zeeyanketu regarding Boxoffice collection(domestic) of Bol Bachchan
I am having an important discussion on Bol Bachchan domestic nett gross figures on User talk:zeeyanketu.If you wish,you can give your views there  ---Ghajinidetails  talk to me 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyways ,Thanx for your intervention ,Following a discussion years back Boxofficeindia have been used only just like Boxofficemojo for hollywood films So for one User:Ghajinidetails,it cannot be changed or modified,Moreover this user claimed himself to be 4 years old editor on his another User:Rajnikanth1 user page then ,why he is so unknown and confused and didnt know about this matter and yesterday he copied the format of my signature too which is not fair.Please give your suggestion about the matter. ---zeeyanketu  talk to me 08:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Leica M Monochrom "notability"
Hi, I think it is time to revisit the Leica M Monochrom notability issue. OriumX (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting I nominate the article for deletion? Because right now it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I could do that, though I'd have to do WP:BEFORE first to see if there are any other sources out there that haven't been added yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not: nominate the article for deletion. It is absurd to delete it. It whould also be awesome if you stoped being arrogant and make your wikipedia contributions constructive instead of destructive. OriumX (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, alternatively, you could actually add evidence to demonstrate that the camera is notable. Which you haven't done. After me giving you many many months to do so. If the subject meets WP:GNG, I obviously would not nominate it for deletion. Thus, the easiest solution is to establish that it does. I don't know much about cameras, but I'm guessing you do, which means you'll be much more able to find good sources than I. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said when you first marked the article for deletion the camera is the first monochrome 35mm digital camera. This is in the article with a reference (that you misinterperted as a blog, when in fact they are one of the most reputable camera review website). This alone makes it more than notable. The fact that it is a new camera in the Leica M series (that is relevant), whould also be enoght to be notable (it is for the M3, M2, Leica M1, Leica M4, Leica M5, Leica CL, Leica M6, Leica MP, Leica M7, Leica M8 and Leica M9). OriumX (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Being the first of something does not automatically make it notable. Most new electronic products are the first at something (first with a certain resolution, the first with a certain chip set, the first with a certain style of software/interface). Our notability guidelines requires that the subject have been talked about in depth in multiple independent sources. Assuming that source already provided is legitimate (note that I did not delete it, assuming that you were correct in your analysis), that's only one source (since the Leica source itself of course is not independent). If you add even one more source that discusses the subject in depth, then the notability tag can be removed. As for the rest of those articles...if I was motivated, I'd strongly consider boldly redirecting them to Leica M. A quick glance shows me that those articles don't seem to meet WP:GNG, either. Luckily, I don't really have time to do that right now, but I could certainly look into it if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick word from someone who does actually know quite a lot about Leica cameras... most older photographers would consider the M series as notable to the point of being legendary. But you're right that the articles don't demonstrate that properly - over the next few weeks, depending on what time I have, I'll try to find some good sources to add to them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. This is one of those cases where I actually assume that sources may exist...but that they require specialist knowledge to find. Ultimatley, though, it does bother me a lot that all of these products have their own page. We're not a catalog. If all we can find on the products is product reviews, they should at least be bundled together into the list article. But, again, probably (for now) not worth my time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a few references to the article. OriumX (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed 2 for not meeting WP:RS, and tagged the other two as questionable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Zeeyanketu regarding Boxoffice collection(domestic) of Rowdy Rathore and Kahaani
I am having an important discussion on Rowdy Rathore and Kahaani domestic nett gross figures on User talk:zeeyanketu.If you wish,you can give your views there  ---Ghajinidetails  talk to me 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
yeah thats exactly what i am thinking gajjinidetails create an ego against me and his message are like an order then i how can i tolerate this .I have no problem with anyone, I will wait for boxoffice india as usual and will add it .And yes,i wil ready for any kind of discussion. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 13:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)
Hi Qwyrxian. Because you participated in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Geography of Afghanistan
After you blocked her she returned and is not only evading block but is vandalising the same page.--182.177.34.196 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a note--I'm currently investigating at WP:ANI whether a rangeblock is feasible; if not, we may have to resort to semi-protection of the page, which is unfortunate, because it would mean you couldn't edit it either. I'll have to wait and see what at checkuser says regarding how busy the underlying range is. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the range 86.25.212.0/22. Let me know if that doesn't solve the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Elen of the Roads' note below, I had to unblock the range. I've added the article to my watchlist; if it gets worse, I'll probably have to semi-protect the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP used by this POV-pushing vandal is from the London metro area and according to the same area IP (92.4.179.188) exposed here, it is highly likely User:اردیبهشت, the POV-pusher who recently got indef-blocked who seems to share very similar interests and has alot of knowledge about Afghanistan. Notice the georgraphy remarks in his edit summaries.--182.177.66.60 (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very unlikely that they are the same person, at least in my opinion--the style of language in the edit summaries is radically different; furthermore, the changing IPs are consistent in their style, and consistently different from User: اردیبهشت. Instead, they look much more like User: AA193. Plus, :اردیبهشت ‎ wasn't really focused on geography (except as it effected the wider issue of information about the Hazara and related peoples). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Aseem Trivedi
Hi. Aseem Trivedi is in news in India, because of his series of cartoons, which got politicians of India angry. Wikipedia Article on him is systematicaly being blanked, section by section by an IP number right now,(that is when I am typinc this). Can you do something? Thank you.-Rayabhari (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The person only did it once, I think. And there are other IP editors who are doing constructive things. So, the best solution is just to revert and ignore. If it becomes a regular problem, the issue can be reported to WP:RFPP, where you can request temporary page protection (so that only people with confirmed accounts can edit it). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi Qwyrxian, i've seen you made an undo on external links of Imran Khan (singer). I added his official twitter, which is a verified account. Also i wanted to add other websites like other musicians did (for example Lady Gaga).

Before I do add them, I would want to know, why you removed it and will you remove these new links as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbymohamed (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ELOFFICIAL says that we should only link to one official site/account for an article, so long as the one linked has links to other, subsidiary sites. So, it turns out, I made a mistake. Usually, the person's main site (here, ) has a link to their twitter account. So, adding the twitter was acceptable; I'll self revert. For other musicians, you need to check the person's main site; if that site has a link to the Twitter account, then the WP article should not also link to the twitter. The basic idea is that we're not here to provide a link to every site/social media presence the person has. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That is true. I got your point. And indeed im not promoting his other networks, but giving a clear vision to his fans and clients, where they can find him on official accounts. Cause i noticed alot of people created fake accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbymohamed (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi dear, I was just wondering, as you probably noticed, I've been updating the Imran Khan (singer) page. The content has been outdated and I've made some major changes to his biography and re-paragraphed it. Is it allowed to do a lot changes in a short wile? Or do I have to wait for some OK's from your side? Also i requested a official photograph of the singer from his management to add it to his wikipedia. How do I put this in the license section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shebbymohamed (talk • contribs) 13:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The changes were mostly good. Only two problems that I noticed on a quick perusal. First, while we would often consider a person's self-bio to be fairly reliable, Khan's contains statements that make if very clear to me that the source is not reliable. Specifically, he says, "Amplifier quickly became the most played song on all major TV stations and radio stations across the globe, and had hit the 2 million view mark on Youtube in only 1 week." The first sentence of that is simply wrong--it is absolutely not true that every major station across the world was playing him; the second statement is possible, but 2 million views in 2 weeks is a lot, and so I'd like some independent evidence of that. Given how outrageous the first statement is, we need to be very careful about accepting the rest of the site. Second, his official site now has Twitter and Facebook linked, right on the main page, so we are no longer allowed to link to them in our article. Again, the idea is that if by visiting the main official website the other social media is linked, then WP doesn't also link to it. And those allmusic and lastfm things...I don't even know why we have the templates, because they clearly do not meet WP:EL. Simply put, we want to link to as little as possible, not as much as possible.
 * But beyond that, the article appears to be very much improved. Thank you for the work! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i saw you were in the middle of my changes to revert again. The biography part, i just broke up and added titles and more references. I did not add new or more text, just changed the last line.

About the external links. All other musicians, i checked their websites and their wikipedia's. They have the same working way. I did not invented something new. Then all links on other musician pages should beremoved as well? ---Shebby Mohamed (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If the other articles have them, they should be removed. We often use the phrase WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a short way of saying that there's a lot of bad or at least imperfect articles on Wikipedia, so we can't use other articles as evidence of the way things should be. So yes, the other articles should have their external links trimmed to meet WP:EL, which is the site-wide guidelines for external links. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do check the other musicians out their, especially americans. I will remove then the social networks. Please if something is not clear, do not undo at once. Put it in the talk as im putting a lot of effort collecting information and placing it. Explain me here what I can do else to make it complete. Thanks in advance. ---Shebby Mohamed (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the way Wikipedia works--one person edits, another person removes part, another person changes it. It's just the nature of working on an open, collaborative wiki. Of course, we shouldn't remove work without a reason, but I try to always give one in edit summaries (which you can see by viewing the history of the article). If a change is controversial, or if 2 people don't agree, then, yes, we use the talk page, but there's no requirement that changes go to the talk page first, especially the first time someone edits and reverts. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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) 16:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wandering Son editor ban
Upon some closer investigation, I believe that the IP user you banned for a second time,, is also operating under a ranged IP, previously edited under and , which are registered with Nova University. I believe it is clear the user is now editing using the university's network to bypass the ban based on a stark similarity between their edits (except for the removal of Japanese text, which I believe is due to the university computers not having Japanese text rendering software installed).--  十  八  21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if that's correct, Neither of the 137* IPs have been used since May 2012. We don't block accounts or IPs unless there s recent disruption from them. However, if another IP comes back to that article, it wil be worth considering semi-protection rather than trying to hit every new IP. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 137.52.209.129 edited the article just today after you banned 50.128.198.195. But yes, I've already asked for page protection for a second time.--  十  八  23:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have clicked the wrong link twice. I've semi-protected the article for a week. When it happens again (as I'm expecting it will), I'll sp for longer if needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your revert in Steeler Nation dispute
Hi Qwyrxian. I saw your edit comment in the Steeler Nation dispute. Thanks. I'm sorry about that, but Dmitrij D. Czarkoff got involved in the dispute as a volunteer, then clearly withdrew from it five days ago, and now is coming back and adding huge clutter to a discussion that has been going on for two weeks. We were finally close to getting to a decision and then Dmitrij posts all those unnecessary Draft sections, which put the whole debate back into chaos. It was the last thing that was needed, particularly from someone who already resigned long ago because he said he admitted he wasn't knowlegeable enough to help. Can you please remove all those Draft sections, or at least reduce them down so they don't clutter up the page. I don't know if there's a way to just hide them, so someone can just click on it if they want to see it, but that would be great. Thanks! :) --76.189.97.59 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Involved editors can't make comfortably and neutrally make decisions about what should or shouldn't stay in the discussion. Keeping it there doesn't hurt anything. In any event, as a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove other people's comments except in special circumstances which don't apply here. So please don't do that again. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I already said I was sorry for removing them so there was no need to tell me not to do it again. I wrote you; you didn't write me. Second, they were not other people's comments that I removed. Dmitrij simply copy and pasted prior comments from the involved editors into all the new Draft sections he created. And, on top of that, repeatedly typed in the 7 sources from the article under each editor's Draft section (no one even knows why), taking up lots of even more unnecessary space. (Someone has since removed all those repetitious sources.) So it was just a huge duplication of comments that were already there, which caused tens of thousands of unneeded characters being added to an already extremely lengthy discussion. That's why I was writing to ask you if you could at least hide all this extra text, so that if someone wanted to see them they could just click and "unhide" link or something like that. His actions by adding all this content severely hampered the process of the discussion, one which he resigned from five days ago. --76.189.97.59 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:71.233.208.112 (Again)
This guy didn't listen to anything I've said to him, continues to make disruptive edits, but is infrequent enough to understand he has been blocked. Maybe a longer block is now necessary. NECRAT Speak to me 07:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 2 weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Help Needed
Hi.Thank you for your message in my talk page. Sitush was guiding me in wikipedia article creation/editing, in the areas of citation, copyright rules, notability. It will be of immense help for me if you guide/rectifiy/suggest changes in my edits. Recently I have created following articles(some of them biographies) and I request you to help me to suggest whether they meet "notability" standards; please review. and also AFD improved by me -
 * Ashok Gudigar,
 * Naranappa Uppoor,
 * K.V.Ramesh, Puppeteer,
 * Kogga Devanna Kamath,
 * Dr. T.G.McGann
 * Baba Hariram,
 * Sham Prasad Kesar,
 * Rashmi Singh

Earlier, I remember you gave good suggestion about my improvement of article Mumtaz Begum. Thank you. -Rayabhari (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can take a look at those; it will take me time, so I'll review them one by one, probably over the course of a week or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ashok Gudigar
I've done some editing on Ashok Gudigar. The biggest problem was the use of "Online Bangalore" as a source. Anytime that you are considering pulling information from a website that isn't an online newspaper (or other similar source), be very suspicious about it. I would estimate that easily 98% or more websites do not meet WP:RS, and those that do tend to be in specialist fields like pop culture and computers. Looking around the Bangalore Online site, I saw that users could submit articles. This means it's basically an open wiki--anyone can submit info, as long as it's related to Bangalore. That means it's definitely not a reliable source. I removed some of the info associated with that site, and tagged the rest as needing citations. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am yet to know much about citations/sources. What you observed about "online bangalore" is true, I observed. I will try to provide more citations.

thank you.-Rayabhari (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My request to you is, whether this subject notable, being a living person biography?
 * He's definitely notable. First, he qualifies under WP:GNG, because he has been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the fact that he's won both a national award and a state government award in his field (plus, it appears, possibly some other awards, too) definitely supports a claim of notability as an artist. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Naranappa Uppoor
I've asked a question at that articles talk page; I'm concerned that the bulk of the article is based on a source whose reliability is unclear. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Two more
The puppeteer is definitely notable, but I don't think McGann is (unless there are more sources to prove notability that haven't been presented yet). I've prodded the McGann article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. T.G.McGann
Hi. Thank you for your supports and copyedits.
 * Dr. T.G.McGann article - I have tried to improve the article with other sources. There are several seemingly important issues to be added to the article, but I am not finding reliable sources - for example, Dr. McGann and Mrs.McGann stayed back in Mysore State (not like most of the other Europeans who went to England for their retired life)( I am yet to get full info. about this) and donated large amount to construct the hospital and also one of them brethed last in Shimoga : for all these, I am finding reliable sources and then develop the article. It is remarkable for a European couple to stay back in the backward districts of India during first part of 20th century. We may keep the article.-Rayabhari (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Textile Education in Bangladesh, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spinning and Finishing (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) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a few quick questions
"No, such templates do not add any value to the article" - you gave consent to the aforementioned, I mean to ask, is it because you think such templates are inherently useless?

You asserted, "This is because I generally find such templates to be excessive and only very rarely useful" - Much of the information in any article will more than likely be found elsewhere, do you find other information to be excessive too? And also can that external availability serve as a credible rationale against inclusion of verifiable content in an article? These are just some questions I had to ask you because I couldn't make anything of your well-intentioned comment. P.S. Now, please don't go to the RFC and formally right a clarification stating that "the author is confused". Let it be between us, if you could. I don't want to seem like an inane person. :) Thank you. Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I find that some editors think templates that connect only somewhat related articles to be unnecessary and unprofessional. They detract from our mission, which is to provide a good, clear, encyclopedic overview of a topic. An encyclopedic overview of "Japan" (that's the article where I saw your note which lead me to the RfC) does not need to include a template that lists Japan's largest cities. That doesn't help the reader; worse, it provides extraneous information, and extraneous information is by definition detrimental to the reader. One smart way I've seen this explained is that our job in Wikipedia is to sort out the wheat from the chaff. If someone wants to know everything about a subject, well, there's Google and University libraries. Our whole value is that we make editorial decisions about information, capturing the most important points in a concise summary. Heck, that's the value of any encyclopedia; we're lucky in that our digital format lets us collect more, but it doesn't mean we want to go for everything. I believe that a list of largest cities falls under the "everything" category. Now, having said that, I am willing to trust the good faith of other editors that if they feel for some reason that a particular article needs a template like this, that they can come to a consensus to include it. But I think the default should be exclusion, not inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, Sir, I don't wish to seem too persistent but "extraneous information" — what do you mean? Let's take Japan - since you mentioned it here - as an example, the template heading says, "Largest cities or towns of Japan" (which is BTW supported by 2010 consensus ) is that what you are pointing to as "extraneous" information? But how could that be? I mean, you do understand that these listed towns belong to Japan, then how could that information about city population be extraneous in demographics section? "Our whole value is that we make editorial decisions about information, capturing the most important points in a concise summary." — I couldn't agree more. And let me even tell you this that I agree there is no substitute for discussion. With all that said, don't you think the default nature of Wikipedia is to include and preserve all the verifiable and relevant content in any article (unless, of course, it directly violates any core policy)? Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the default policy of Wikipedia is to cut and edit. If the default policy were to preserve, we would have articles that listed every person living in each city, state, and town; we'd have articles that explained every single step of how the 2004 Toyota Prius is assembled, and the Japan article would list, not only every person, but every road, every business, every city, and, as far as possible, every plant with full geo-coordinates...am I being facetious? Yes. But my point is, Wikipedia policy absolutely does not say that we are trying to preserve everything is verifiable; don't worry, because this is a common mistake many editors make. Verifiability is simply the minimum threshold that must be met before something can be added. For me, a list of largest cities is on the wrong side of the "how much is too much" debate in most cases, and its at least questionable enough that it should not be default added to every country page. Are we done here? Because I don't quite understand why you and I are arguing about this. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Astute comment, I must sincerely say.


 * But didn't I mention wikipedia's core policies as precondition for inclusion? Why are you overlooking that part? You know that notability is a vital part of wikipedia along with verifiability, right? You know about common sense. "For me, a list of largest cities is on the wrong side of the "how much is too much" debate in most cases" - don't you think that is a tad subjective? And you didn't explain how a list containing populations of top 10 or 20 cities in the demographics section of an article about a Nation, can possibly be extraneous. I simply don't get it.
 * BTW, the question is not "whether such a template should by default be added to every country page?", the question is "does a largest cities/city population template add anything to an article about a nation (esp. featured ones)?" I asked you at my first comment here, "do you think such templates are inherently useless?" Mrt 3366 (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly know that notability is a vital part of Wikipedia, but you don't apparently know what it means, because notability is a measurement that is only applied to whether or not a subject can have a stand alone article, and never has anything to do with deciding what information goes into articles. To quote from the policy, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." As for common sense, well, that's a useless standard. WP:IAR, by definition, only applies in cases where every or almost every reasonable editor would agree; the current trend on the RfC shows that does not apply here. One cannot simply say, "It doesn't matter that (almost) everyone disagrees with me, because it's common sense that we have to include it, so IAR." Another way of putting that is that assertion of IAR cannot override consensus.
 * Do I think such templates are inherently useless? No, but I think that they are usually useless. At the same time, I accept that reasonable editors may disagree with me, and should a consensus arise at a particular page that such a template would be useful on that specific article, I would not try to argue that it's so obviously bad that general consensus beats local consensus.  The only reason I located my response in the "No" rather than the "It depends" section is that I wanted to be clear that I was representing the strongest position--that the default should always be to not include this template (or, really, most templates), and that the burden must always lie on those wishing to include it to make a strong case whenever such inclusion is disputed. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Pal Kshatriya Other Clan Names (Titles)
Please see my reply on User:Qwyrxian/Pal-kshatriya and respond accordingly. --Jalaj Singh 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalajsinghpal (talk • contribs)
 * I added a comment now. Sorry for the delay. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the "Anita Bose Pfaff" article
As I write on the talk page of the article I really don't agree with the deletion proposal of the "Anita Bose Pfaff" article proposed from you. There are many reason for not deleting this article. One of the major reason isn't that Anita is the daughter of one of the most prominent political figures in the history of modern India or that she has an important academic background. The main reason is that she has from some time, in spite of herself, at the center of a major media phenomenon. Infact there is a strong dispute between those who argue that she is the daughter of Subash Chandra Bose and a minorance who argue that she isn't. (See f.e.: World believes Netaji was married, but not his party) but also:, , , , ... Furthermore some traditional hindu followers of Netaji simply don't want to accept the fact that he had a non-indian wife outside India and so on. In conclusion I strongly belive that this is definitely an article to expand, but certainly not to delete being at the center of a major international media case.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But why is Anita PFaff herself notable? I'm not asking why Subash Chandra Bose is notable--in order for Pfaff to have her own article, she must be independently notable, not just interesting because of her father. If she is only important to people in connection to the relationship of her mother and father, then she should simply be discussed in his article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand my point of view. I have already explained above why this article should not be deleted. And the reason is not the one you cited here. Sorry if I repeat it again: "One of the major reason isn't that Anita is the daughter of one of the most prominent political figures in the history of modern India or that she has an important academic background. The main reason is that she has from some time, in spite of herself, at the center of a major international mediatic phenomenon" as you can easily see if you thake a look at the above mentioned (and many others that you can easily find) links. Anita is a public figure now much famous in India. And that alone would be a good reason to appear in a WP's article. Thake a look f.e. at this important historical documentary--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding afd
Sorry Sir, I didn't mean that. I also told that he can improve the article/s.Even I don't have any bias against any article. Now, I have removed that message and will not do that again. Seek your pardon. Thank you for your kind advise. --- Bharathiya (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no problem--lots of people don't know about the canvassing rule, and it's not one that comes up that often. Wikipedia has a long learning curve, so as long as you know now, everything is great. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Jagannath Temple, Puri
I am a bit confused. What was unclear? Since further details of early western opinion on Jagannath is explained in the article Juggernaut I did not elaborate it again. As for the part of it being claimed Jesus had visited Puri, the same is mentioned on the Wikipedia page on the gospel of Aquarians. Is the gospel and the cult mainstream enough to merit the number of  wikipedia articles on the subject that exist? But not mainstream enough to use as a reference in another article?. Maybe clarifying that New age believers of the Aquarian Gospels believe Jesus visited Puri may be better than deleting the entire thing together? Looking forward to your thoughts on the subject

sids 06:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)User talk:Sidsahu
 * Hmmm...well, after looking at it more carefully and Juggernaut, it does look like that information should be included somewhere. However, it's not really "influences on the west", as much as it is the source of a word's etymology. It would be better if we could get a source for that; I know it's on the Juggernaut page, but it's not sourced there. The second part is more a problem of WP:UNDUE; that is, the Aquarian Gospels are a pretty minor religion, not one with a significant connection to the subject of the temple. It certainly is inaccurate to call the temple or the Aquarian Gospels as influence on Christianity, as the group is not accepted as a Christian religion by other denominations. I'm not sure it's really important enough to go in at all, but, if it does, it needs to go somewhere else in the article, and we definitely need a secondary source that talks about the group (because their internal religious document isn't a reliable source, and it also doesn't demonstrate any importance to the group). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Codex
Greetings, User Qwyrxian!

I received your message. Thank you. I responded on the talk page for the Codex, as my response was intended for you as well as Vitaminman. Please have a look, and advise me on the appropriate course of action? --FeralOink (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Madhu Kora
The actual spelling of his name is Madhu Kora. He is an member of Indian Parliament from Singhbhum constituency. So I am giving you the most imp. ref - Election Commission of India, where a person files his name in correct spellings - See link page 17 pdf and serial no 521 http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/archiveofge2009/Stats/VOLI/11_ListOfSuccessfulCandidate.pdf and see the MOST IMPORTANT LINK - THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF 'GOVERNMENT OF INDIA' PROFILE PAGE OF MADHU KORA - http://india.gov.in/govt/loksabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=4328. I had earlier also requested to get your facts clear before writing a msg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckydhaliwal (talk • contribs) 10:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why do the other sources refer to hm as Madhu Koda? I've moved the article back. It is time to start a discussion on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In India it is a common practice to use two spellings since the names are actually in hindi. Kora can also be wwitten as Koda. I will give you an example Gurdas Maan is a famous punjabi singer and his name is written as 1. Gurdas Maan - http://www.gurdasmaan.com/ - this his official web site and also as 2. Gurdas Mann - on itunes http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/gurdas-mann/id18476230 you can see in itunes both spellings.

Secondly you spoiled the article without reading it and all the refernces. I will tell how -

1.However, only a tiny fraction of the Rs 4000 crores (USD 800 mn) graft money allegedly amassed by him has been recovered - This line has no citation but you reverted it.

2.Madhu Koda was born in Patratu - he was actually born in Vill. Gua ref- http://india.gov.in/govt/loksabhampbiodata.php?mpcode=4328

3.Koda is married to Geeta, who contested the Jagannathpur assembly seat on a Jharkhand Navnirman Morcha ticket - his wife won on JBSP Jai Bharat Samanta Party -ref see Serial No 54 page 8 and 9 box of pdf http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/AE2009/Stats_JH_Oct2009.pdf - It is official web site of  Election commission of india.

And so on it is full of mistakes and I corrected all but you are reverting it to wrong. You are misusing your adm power. Now the responsibility lies on you to verify to your satisfaction and correct each and every mistake in the topic as I have tried it twice but you dont allow. You say that I dont edit correctly and change valid info to invalid. But the actual fact is that you have have reverted everything again to wrong. You should prove and show me just a single line which I have edited and is wrong and not supported by references. Just tell me where I am wrong in editing and I will prove you with facts that every line written by me is correct and infact the article now is incorrect as I have given you three examples above and there are many more mistakes.

If you doubt about spelling in name you should check it but I fail to understand why you revert the edits in the article also which are well backed by references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckydhaliwal (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it that way because there was no easy way to separate out the changes you'd made, and you didn't seem willing to do it yourself. I've gone ahead and re-added your refs and changes, and then went back and changed the name by hand. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

A message for you on talk page of Ram Prasad Bismil
Mr. Qwyxian! I am giving you two important links of worldcat organisation from where you can judge whether the books of which I had given the reference hereinabove is a reliable source or not. Even then if Mr Sitush is not satisfied what else can be done here? Hope at least you will help me. ....Quicksilver7784 (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AKrant%2C+Madan+Lal+Verma%2C&qt=hot_author
 * http://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-no2005-41232
 * Those Worldcat links don't tell me anything other than that the book exists and a few libraries have it. What did you intend to mean with those links? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Show Cause
Why you delete the contents of Textile Education in Bangladesh. You should it undo as soon as possible. Kironbd07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kironbd07 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed information for two reasons. First, a lot of it was not neutral--it talked about how great the schools are, or how well regarded, or whatever. That's not allowed per WP:NPOV. I also removed a bit of the details about the institutions, because that information can be found on the institutions pages themselves--per our summary style, we don't need to repeat that information in that page.
 * Was there something in specific that I removed that you think should be put back? It's possible that during my clean-up I took out more than necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Labanya Prabha Ghosh
Hi. Labanya Prabha Ghosh was nominated for deletion, and I found that the person was / is notable. I developed the artaicle and am not sure, whether my approach is appropriate. Can you please review this article and give suggestions, if any? Thank you for all your support. Rayabhari (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, she clearly appears to be notable, and the article looks better now. The AfD is clearly going to result in keeping the article, which is great. Thanks for the helpful additions! Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
I assume you are also aware of this user canvassing at "the" bands, but if not here you go. ~ GabeMc  (talk 01:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not, but I will explore the issue. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Spamming/promotion?
Hi there! Please take a look at User:Ranjit preet/sandbox; they seems to be a professional writer and inserted external links to his pages everywhere e.g. blogs, openlibrary, facebook pages in the promotional way. Is it not spamming and promotion? If they would do this on any article namespace, I would immigately revert that before any talk but as they did so in their user space so I want your help if a user can do what ever he/she want in their userspace? (He also did the same on the Punjabi wiki.) --tari buttar (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked the user to explain. The strangest thing is that we already have an article on the exact same topic. Unless I get a clear explanation, I'm likely to nominate for deletion, since if the only reason he created it was to spam his online presence, it's not appropriate. But it's possible he has some other purpose in mind, either learning Wiki syntax in a safe place or in preparation for modifications to the article itself, so I'll wait a while to see if any explanation is forthcoming. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Webclient101 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

what i meant on "persists"
I saw that the author of an article, Blake Stamos had already been warned on creating that self-promotional article before I tagged it, it appeared that he did it again, and thus is why I thought he persisted in the self promotion. Thebestofall007 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But it was the same article. The editor was warned at 1:01, and you tagged the article for deletion at 1:02. Thus, there was no persisting. The editor didn't "do it again", they only did it once. And even if they had done it a second time, we rarely block people for just one repeated mistake, except when it's clearly someone just here to vandalize the encyclopedia. But for things like self-promotion, we at least try to talk to the person, because many people simply don't understand our rules about what is or isn't a valid WP article. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I gotcha now. Thebestofall007 (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Webclient101 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad/images
i thought you should know that I reverted image deletion edits by User:ASDosar to whom you have given this final warning. DeCausa (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know; I've blocked the user indefinitely. As I explained in the block notice, usually I'd start with a short, fixed duration block, but the user's last edit before today was in May, so I doubt any short duration block would even be noticed. Indefinite, though, doesn't mean infinite--the user just needs to commit to not deleting the images any more. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RSN
Wow, was someone having a bad day when they responded to and then unilaterally closed my query here? Or was I really that off-beam? - Sitush (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've undone the closure, and added a comment. Amadscientist either misunderstood you or is just flat out wrong. In any event, noticeboard threads should not be closed so quickly unless, like the one below you, they're in the wrong place.
 * I'm not good about checking threads on those pages--my eyes tend to skim over them on my watchlist (i'm up to over 4800 pages--how about you?). If something further develops there and I don't respond, feel free to let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was the premature closure that most surprised me, although the vague suggestion that I have some sort of Muslim POV was weird also. My puny 1250-item watchlist may be static at present - some added, some removed. I reckon that I'd implode somewhere around the 2000 mark. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * YGM. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll followup tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Amadscientist seems to be showing up a bit today - looking a bit stressed, possibly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Boing, they said on their talk page that they were not having a bad day but the indications seems to be otherwise. I, too, have seen them around a fair bit in the last few hours - I have ANI, DRN etc watchlisted. I find some of the actions and interpretations to be very peculiar. Perhaps they are just skimming stuff and picking up what they consider to be key phrases etc. It is skimming that often causes people to accuse Malleus of incivility etc, although of course he (and I!) are not perfect. I've seen your note on their talk page, Q. I'm not happy with the situation but will back off because they have at least retracted some of their stuff. Hopefully, they will backtrack on the remainder of their high-handedness, especially the idea that my original comment was "inappropriate", contrary to some bluelink or another, and likely to foment a religious hoo-hah. If something is controversial then it is controversial and we cannot just brush it under the carpet. The assumption that, because I did not respond within five minutes, I must be rethinking my position was plain bizarre. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, people acting under stress don't always immediately recognise it in themselves - and I think there is enough on the page now to show he was wrong with his ABF, wrong in closing the discussion on his sole say-so, and factually wrong about the source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

From Knightflyte
Mr. Qwyxian,

I found your message and ssuptions just a wee but harsh. You refer back to three years ago when I was just strarting to learn how to do minot editing on Wkupedia pages. I made mistakes but it was never delibarte. I have never been paid for any contributions I've made to Wikipedia including my latest effort for the YWCA Los Angeles. I'm contributing my time to them for many of the great services they provide to the community. Instead of threatening to block me I'd much rather appreciate your guidance and help whenever possible. – — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightflyte (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies if I sounded harsh. Please note that my concerns about promotionalism don't only relate to the 3 year old discussion; for instance, in June of this year, you added phrases like, "As one the industry's most respected acting coaches, R.J. Adams ..." to The Actors Workshop. That's the exact same sort of language that professional promoters use. The info you added to YWCA was also promotional in that you weren't describing them neutrally, you were praising them for their great contributions to LA (just like you've done in the message I'm replying to now). Note that promoting isn't only by being paid--if you're a volunteer for YWCA LA, and editing on their behalf, that still falls under WP:COI.
 * However, please note that I'm not interested in blocking you for this. As I said, I am personally okay with people editing on behalf of their companies, organization, selves, and even editing for pay, so long as all of our other policies are followed. All I care is that we have good, well written, neutral, and informative articles at the end of the day.
 * So, again, sorry if I was threatening. The main thing you need to improve on is writing neutral, sourced prose. WP:NPOV and WP:V are a good place to start for information about how those rules work. The information you just added to the YWCA LA article is much better because it was verified by reliable sources; thank you for that. I'm happy to advise further whenever you need help. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to explain things to me and believe we are on the same page. I do appreciate your attitude. In the future I will do my best to follow every Wikipedia policy as I understand the great amount of work that editors like yourself spend on the various articles. Your offoer to add help will be gladly accepted. Many thanks – — ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightflyte (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)