User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 4

Clomiphene
Regarding the article on 'Clomiphene' where the change was made with 'this is wrong'.

That section of article as it currently stands is wrong. It displays a lack of understanding of the menstrual cycle. I don't have the necessary time to find references, but ultimately, it is the loss of Wiki if you decide not to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.162.129 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly accept that the article may be wrong--it happens all the time. But Wikipedia articles have to be written a certain way. They aren't written as a conversation "This is right, no this is right, no this is!"  They need to be written as a single, cohesive whole.  Furthermore, information must be verified by reliable sources.  I see that the info currently in the article isn't sourced, either, which is bad.  If you want to make the change, what you should have done is to erase the information currently there, and replaced it with the "correct" information.  Then it would be up to other editors who are familiar with the subject to discuss what the correct information is.  Eventually, the decision on what is correct should be made by reference to reliable sources.  If the sources disagree, then both viewpoints should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Another thank you
I really appreciate your rolling back the vandalism of my user page.Obviously the vandal is not an art lover.Skreen (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Xe blanked a number of few user pages, I believe in connection to the Goodbody Stockbrokers page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Hart
Firstly, thank you for your patience in trying to keep this article under control. It really does appear that one (or several) of the editors have a significant COI. I noticed that the current anon IP is located at Virginia (USA) where apparently Hart works... Gillyweed (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My IP is located in VA. How is that relevant? As I've said, I am new to Wikipedia, and did not know that all changes had to be cleared first. I think we all have the same goal, which is to make Hart's encyclopedia entry informative and neutral. As it stands, the page is in need of serious work. There's so much extraneous biographical information, and an undue focus on "poetry." As I just wrote on Hart's talk page, Hart made his name as a poet, but most of his current publications are in the areas of philosophy and theology.Phainein (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't actually talking about your IP, but it is interesting that you too are in Virginia. Why are there two/three editors all editing at once from the same place.  Especially when they are making similar edits?  Gillyweed (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article has way too much biographical information. As for the focus on poetry, that's an issue we should discuss.  Up until recently, almost all of the sources that I had access to talked about his poetry, and a little bit about his literary criticism.  Now, I may simply not have had good information about his work as a theologian/philosopher; and good, sourced info should be added regarding that.  Sorry if I/Gillyweed made it sound like you need permission before making changes.  The problem is that this article is very contentious (I don't know why, but it is).  As such, it has some extra editing restrictions not found on all other articles.  You're still welcome to make changes, but if someone does "undo" one of your changes, you should go to the article's talk page and discuss the specific changes you are proposing and why you think they should be made.  This will allow us to establish a consensus (that follows policy) about how to move forward.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I see is exactly what you've done. Thanks!  I'll make more comments over there.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a shield for you Qwyrxian
Thanks! Of course, I must give credit to my wonderful co-star, Huggle. 14:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Timeline of Historic Inventions
Hello,

I moved the section to the end, where you said it should be.

I am very unfamiliar with Wikipedia, except as a source of information, but it is important to me that it be accurate, which is why I made the entry I did. I was really annoyed at this article, for the reasons I gave. I have seen articles before that I thought were not up to serious standards, but they were always what looked like honest attempts. I have never before seen anything like this. I hope it does not happen very much.

I do a lot of work on Wikianswers, especially in the section on the Middle Ages, and I was working on lists of inventions from that period and the Renaissance, comparing the two. There are articles in Wikipedia on the technology of each, which I had used as sources, but I was doing further research to improve an answer I had made, when I hit the Timeline of Historic Inventions.

I would really enjoy going into the timeline list except it looks like a hot issue that people are more interested in debating than presenting facts usefully. That being the case, I find it too scary for me. I don't mind cooperating with people, but I really dislike competing with them.

Also, I really do think the whole thing should be revisited from the ground up, with some sort of standards being applied. If it were up to me, I would require every entry to include a citation, but also a note saying whether the date is the date of an invention or the date of the oldest evidence of the invention. I would require inventions to have a traceable impact on history, and a widespread cultural importance. Frankly, I doubt the contributers to this article would accept any form of discipline.

What the article really needs is a dispassionate arbiter who can judge an invetion according to stated standards, as objectively as possible, and make a determination. Unfortunately, that is a little out of keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia, so I doubt it would be done, even temporarily. But in the meantime, it is a mess, and is likely to remain so. Too bad.

I don't know about the four tildas. I clicked on the signature button, and whatever the robotic device is that checks to see if I did that flagged the text anyway.

Anyhow, thanks for the input.

George Harvey --ghh 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)

Minor edit
"What is minor or not" is a subjective issue but your point is taken. STSC (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Proceeding with edits
It appears that we have a problem in the page where we have both been actively editing. While the divide in opinion is nothing new, the recent series of relentless reverts does make it difficult for certain appropriate contents to be corrected. Even though discussions have been made and justifications for the contents were given, they tend to be ignored or discontinued by certain parties whenever any inconvenient refutations were established. Wikipedia standards also seemed to be selectively cited exclusively for convenient purposes by certain people.

Now, since the admins refuse to step in to deal with this, I am wondering what can be done about this. An easy way of handling the situation is to keep allowing certain contents to be suppressed until others get fed up and start an edit war. Another would be to somehow work out some content management process that is not biased by cultural preference. A third option would be to ask for a mediation or arbitration.

I am not sure how interested you are in keeping the page's content neutral or tolerating content that contradict your political views, but it would be nice to know how you feel about this given your experience with the "Sea of Japan naming dispute" page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you feel if I requested Full Protection, say, for a week?  This would at least give us a week during which no one could edit the page at all.  I assume you mean both pages (Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute).  I hesitate to do so at the moment, since my edits were the last major ones (the moving of a chunk from the Islands page to the dispute page), so I don't want anyone to think I'm protecting "my version"--especially when what's up there right now is definitely not the version I prefer, if only because it's a great big fat mess.
 * Then, if after about a week, we've been unable to make any progress on the talk page, we could move into mediation. Personally, I don't think mediation will help right now, because mediation seems to work best when there are clear and specific problems that need resolving, whereas we have a lot of different and complex disagreements.  Nonetheless, I will definitely agree to participate in any mediation (formal or Cabal).  Arbitration isn't needed yet, because arbitration deals with user behavior, not content.  In my opinion, there's been some borderline activities from a number of different participants, but not quite enough to go that far...although, I've been at this for less time than others have, so I may just not have experienced the worst of it.
 * As for my goals, all I want is to push the page to neutral and to clean it up (two goals which I hope are mutually compatible). As for my opinion...I, like everyone else, have both an opinion; nonetheless, I want to work (and want everyone else to work) within the framework required on WP for sourcing, due weight, etc.  I do have a low tolerance for the idea that consensus can be used to override any core policy (here, NPOV in particular).  I will say that I have, in the past completely switched my view point of a period of time in the face of clear and compelling evidence (on Kimchi, if it matters).
 * So...full protection? Like I said, I'm pretty much tempted to wait until after someone else makes a significant edit so that it doesn't look like I'm trying to protect my version. Alternatively, you or someone else could request it.  Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind having the page protected for a while, but that may not necessarily solve the problem.
 * Currently, the editorial process of the page is practically possessed by a selected few editors due to the constant reverts by a number of editors who are obviously striving to bias the article towards the Japanese. While you may not notice this, it is obviously happening if you check the edit history of both pages or the contributions history of the most frequent editors.
 * Your misgivings towards the overriding effect of consensus is something I agree with and this is also an issue we are suffering from. Contrary to what you said, a lot of the disagreements that took place are in fact very simple. While you may not agree with all my arguments and concepts presented in the talk pages, there are a number of them that are unambiguously valid. The dispute regarding the Remin Ribao article is such an example, where it is clear that some editors were making completely false claims about what the original article said but refused to allow the article to be corrected. And of course, when I made the correction myself, I was treated with an instant revert and a vandalism warning (which I do not take seriously). To make it short, the nature of some editors involved make it simply ineffective to use a consensus approach - Consensus only works if everyone involved is rational and intelligent.
 * Personally, I think it's best to simply block the worst vandals and their IP's from the two pages. I mean, it should be obvious to you who's exerting a great amount of destructive interference and who's not. But unfortunately, this process is not trivial especially if those people have lots of wiki-friends. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will say that I didn't follow the Rinmei Ribao issue closely. In part, the problem is that a number of editors are using, and even asking others to use, extraordinarily complex argumentative structures.  I admit quite clearly that I didn't care enough about that particular source to read through all of the details; to me, behind all of the words, the issue seemed unbelievably simple: source X misattributed, intentionally, pictures of one event to an article about a different event.  To me, that meant that the article in question was unreliable on the face of it.  But, I didn't comment much because I didn't understand all of the details, plus a lot of the "evidence" was in languages that I don't understand.  As a side note, I believe that part of our problem is that several different editors seem to not use English as a native language, so I feel like I'm seeing some disagreements escalating in part due to miscommunication.
 * In any event, as I just stated at the ANI page about this issue, I don't see any one editor who should be blocked from the page. I see a number of different editors on both sides who are engaging in disruptive practices.  One side makes a totally uncalled for bold change, and the other side reverts it.  Then someone else makes a minor change, and the other side suddenly invents the idea that the page as it was before was in full consensus and every change needs to be fully discussed on the talk page first...sigh.  I would like to start over, from the very beginning, find things that we agree about, things that are well sourced, and agree on having those in the article, and then slowly work our way to less contentious issues.  Instead, we're seeing too many bold moves, too many reverts towards a false consensus, etc.  Unless something terribly pressing arises today, I'm going to go crazy on Google (etc.) searches, and see if I can pin down as much hard "data" on the name as possible, as to me that is the most fundamental issue of the page (that is, the page's name itself).  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have mistaken that issue with User:Tenmei's discussions, unless you are saying my writing style is unclear. I am not convinced that a deficiency in English language ability is responsible for this mess. Other than Tenmei (who sounds distinctively oriental), I find the other users' level of English close to native level. So, I highly doubt miscommunication has ever been an issue (like seriously...).
 * I don't really see a point to start over. The main task I see at hand is to remove the unsourced materials and dubious references/materials. If this cannot be achieved, I don't see how your idea can yield any better results. It's not like some editors will forget about the bad information they fought so hard to protect simply because of a wipe. While discussions can work in theory, my experience tells me that some editors are stubborn enough to ignore them when it becomes inconvenient. Is there any reason for you to you believe that wouldn't be the case? Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about other users...but, in any event, that's not really that important. As for approach--I actually think your suggestion is just fine--start by going through the sources, one by one, and making sure they meet WP:RS and the associated statement meets WP:DUE, and that there's no other way to proceed.  As for "ignoring" the discussions when the become inconvenient...I think you are correct that some editors will do so; I mean, I don't know if any of the currently involved editors will do so, but I do know that I have encountered other editors on WP who have done so.  In my opinion, in the long run, those editors are difficult to deal with only if there is a solid bloc of them.  If there's just one or two people resisting in the face of consensus, then the built in policies against edit warring tend to work fairly well.  However, there is a different "problem," although, personally I don't see it as so much of a problem as it is what makes Wikipedia work, and that is that there is a lot of flexibility built into many of the policies, and many things that aren't explicitly covered by either policy or guidelines.  In that case, editors (especially more savvy editors, of whom I believe we have participating) can spend a long time arguing down every little detail.  One example I've seen (although only participated in a very little bit) can be found on Talk: Historicity of Jesus.  Luckily, I don't think our problems are nearly as unpleasant as those.
 * So, I think that your suggestion is fine, although I think we'll be better off if we go through, step by step, and agree on the sources we do have. Or, alternatively we can just ask everyone to compile a list of all of the sources they object to (or statements that don't match their source), and start looking at those lists.  Then we can go through and either tag or remove all unsourced material.  Then figure out what to do from there.  Is this what you were thinking?  If so, feel free to recommend it on the talk page; or, I can do it if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your most recent comments about the name, I just need to call you out--yours is the attitude that is exactly what I labeled on ANI as borderline disruptive--and thus I think your attitude on the talk pages is nearly as deserving of a "ban" as the editors relentlessly reverting. You basically stated that you've already made up your mind that it's "obvious" that the names are equal and we need a dual name--even though, of course, as we've already said, dual names aren't allowed. And, more importantly, despite the fact that a number of data sets support Senkaku as more common, and 1 data set supports them as equal. I actually believe that once we do the regressive analysis I did on the India articles (i.e., separating articles that state both from articles that just state one), we'll see the same results--in those articles that show a preference, Senkaku will dominate. But, I could well be wrong--it could be something unique about the Indian press that causes them to support Japan. And, if the end result is that they appear to be near equal, I will support the use of Pinnacle Islands (unless someone can come up with a better compromise that meets guidelines). But you seem to be saying that it doesn't really matter what other results we find, because you've already made up your mind. That's not collaborating in good faith. And furthermore, your bringing up of red herrings (like the number of speakers of Chinese, or the impossible to measure "impact factor") are those activities that I described as not strictly against the rules, but not helpful, either; on those, I'm willing to assume that you made the comments in good faith, as a potential consideration, but they're so far beyond what's relevant that they just obscure the issue. So I would like you to reconsider both your remarks there and your drive/desire to "ban" the "disruptive" elements, because I don't think your own conduct has been perfect, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be strange if you actually think so because I was simply disagreeing with you and telling you my opinion of the issue. I did manage to miss the part about dual-names not being allowed (is it?) because I don't read every post that is not directed at me. The reference to the "Chinese" query result was not serious and simply to demonstrate one can simply choose whatever rules they want to get their own desired types of results. I believe I even made sure this intent is obvious when I wrote that comment but that likely wasn't clear since you are so greatly infuriated by this.
 * By the way, there is a great deal of differences between those pro-Japanese fanatics and myself... namely I back my position with good reasoning, acknowledge mistakes, and don't engage in edit-wars. If you have trouble distinguishing that or simply cannot tolerate scrutiny in any way, then there is a problem. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been ignoring this, I've just been thinking about it; lately I think I may have been responding to quickly to talk page comments on Senkaku Islands. I should have assumed you were acting in good faith, it's just that in conjunction with your earlier calls to ban people from the discussion, it seemed like you were not applying the same standards to all editors, including yourself.  In my opinion, there are other ways to disrupt contentious topics, and I think the combination of your humor (which you're right, I didn't get), your comments here, and the struggling I was doing to produce meaningful data just all came at me the same time and added up to a total that wasn't there.  But if I look at things a little more independently, I don't think you're deliberately POV warring.  I do hope that, if we get more data, you'll continue to keep an open mind about the article name; I know I certainly am, as the data continues to confound and confuse me.  So, my apologies for jumping at you. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was going after a number of editors for good reasons. As I proclaimed numerous times, they persistently added obviously fraudulent information. Then upon being proven wrong in some very unambiguous manner, they'd WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and pull some sort of filibuster on the topic. I'd be surprise if you'd let things like this pass when you were in my position. At the same time, I don't see any parallel of that in me. If I do, then don't you think very opinionated individuals like User:John Smith&, User:Oda Mari, and User:Phoenix7777 would've launched themselves at me and have my talk page be spammed with warnings? Given their history of edits and unequaled love for warning other people over any type of perceived transgression, I find it hard to believe they would've given me a free pass.
 * The comments I made in that Google thread are constructive and legitimate, despite my use of a sarcastic undertone. My main point was that search engine results can be used only as a crude estimate as the real distribution of term usage. While it doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all, it is also necessary to design the experiments carefully. My opinion on the matter is that comparing # of hits on Google, Bing, and Yahoo at generic and news category for "Diaoyu" and "Senkaku" keywords is a sufficiently non-biased test. If one starts introducing rules and try different combinations of search parameters or source acceptance/weighting heuristics, then chances are he will eventually find heuristics that will seemingly support any possible hypothesis (in a sense, it's like overfitting. While I am not an expert in this area, I can tell you that search engines operate in a way that's not quite resembling of what a layperson would imagine. As as a result, I'd strongly recommend you to learn how a search engine works if you really insist on doing more tests. Alternative, you can also ask a computational linguist or search engine expert about his opinion on this problem. I believe those types of experts would be among the most qualified people in the world to help you out. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that search page hits aren't ideal. Then how do we decide?  In this case, policy says our first goal has to be to try to match real world usage--that is, this isn't the same as a normal content issue, where consensus wins.  So how do we measure real world usage?  For example, one thing I noticed is that even though the U.S. has been ambiguous about what exactly they would do should the Chinese military become involved (i.e., they're not taking sides fully), they always, from State Department interviews, to press releases, to the Stars and Stripes magazine, always use Senkaku.  Does that have weight?  Does the fact that CNN seems to almost always use both have more weight than the fact that Indian and Australian are about half neutral and half Senkaku?  I feel like that kind of argument will just trail off forever.  Interestingly, typing all of that seems to make me wonder if people are misunderstanding the basic issue--per the guidelines, we are not supposed to say "There's some controversy, we need a compromise."  Instead, the guidelines say that we need to measure which one is more common--so, for example, if my Indian results held up worldwide, that would unambiguously point to choosing Senkaku (as that name is clearer more common, even though it's not dominating).  I wonder if others (maybe even you) are thinking that because there's like 40% taking a middle stance, that by itself means we're supposed to take a compromise position.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given my input on Google and what kind of tests are suitable. Again, what we have is a crude approximation tool. In the most general and unbiased search, we have very close results for both names. I'd consider that's indicative of approximately equal use. Given this, I don't see dual-name as simply a "compromise" due to the controversy but rather an appropriate solution given acceptable evidence.
 * I am not that interested to drag this on partly because nothing so far has changed my overall opinion. But in response to your argument, I'd comment that the more you dig deeply into this, the more difficult it is for you to resolve the issue. If we are to assign a weight to USA's state department, then how much is it compared to say... the weight of Russia's state department? How do we compute the relative weight? How do we assess the importance of Indian media? Should we include China's own English media that will most definitely have the opposite results?
 * You are welcomed to continue your search, but my impression is that there is enough reason and evidence for a dual name to be used. While name-ordering can become an issue, it is better than having this completely biased towards one side. And undoubtedly, this is what some editors wanted in the first place. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply here, but I realized that the summary of policy I'm about to give needs to be seen by everyone. I'll post it on Talk:Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Intangible Cultural Heritage
Hi, I'm a a developer of Dédalo a free, open source paltaform form management Intangible Cultural Heritage... you remove my external link becouse yo said that "Dédalo is a comercial page" but this not true, Dédalo is a FREE AND OPEN GPL license software for management the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Some people work in Spanish & catalan languaje for several years and now Dédalo is in English... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.52.36 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well, unfortunately, that still doesn't mean it can be an external link.  Basically, Wikipedia wants to have only a very small number of the highest quality external links.  That is, unlike other general sites, we don't want a link to every "helpful" site--only the one's necessary for an encyclopedia.  This usually means the "official" site (like for a company, or a person), links to sites with lots of pictures or other media that we can't import for copyright reasons, or that contain excessively long but encyclopedic material.  That link still doesn't do that.  Even though your software is free, the link still counts as promotional (again, see WP:ELNO).  So please do not re-add it to the  ICH page.  Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok we understand. and make one question for you:
 * what would be the way to introduce in the wikipedia that Dédalo is the only software open source that make possible the management of Intangible Heritage? (in the same way that wikipedia is open source software to manage an encyclopedia).
 * if you se the article "encyclopedia" in wikipedia, you can read this:
 * Encyclopedia


 * Free encyclopedias'
 * Wikipedia is one of the first "user generated content" encyclopedias.
 * The concept of a new free encyclopedia began with the Interpedia proposal on Usenet in 1993, which outlined an Internet-based online encyclopedia to which anyone could submit content and that would be freely accessible. Early projects in this vein included Everything2 and Open Site. In 1999, Richard Stallman proposed the GNUPedia, an online encyclopedia which, similar to the GNU operating system, would be a "generic" resource. The concept was very similar to Interpedia, but more in line with Stallman's GNU philosophy.
 * It was not until Nupedia and later Wikipedia that a stable free encyclopedia project was able to be established on the Internet. The English Wikipedia became the world's largest encyclopedia in 2004 at the 300,000 article stage[22] and by late 2005, Wikipedia had produced over two million articles in more than 80 languages with content licensed under the copyleft GNU Free Documentation License. As of August 2009, Wikipedia has over 3 million articles in English and well over 10 million combined in over 250 languages. Since 2003, other free encyclopedias like the Chinese-language Baidu Baike and Hudong, as well as English language encyclopedias like Citizendium and Knol have appeared....
 * Indented line
 * this is not "promotional"?, This is the way?, we can make one section of free software in the Intangible Cultural Heritage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.52.36 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the relevant guideline, which is WP:EL. Basically, there is no way to add that link.  We are not a linking site.  The only way that link could possibly appear would be if Dedalo were itself notable enough for an article.  This would only be if Dedalo had been discussed, several times, significantly, in reliable, independent sources.  So, if there are news articles or trade journals that discuss Dedalo (please note that press releases don't count), then we could consider making an article on Dedalo. If Dedalo does not rise to that level of importance, then it's somewhat possible that there could be a discussion of "software used for ICH" in the ICH article.  You should discuss that with other editor's on that articles talk page.  You'll still need at least one reference in a reliable source to include the info, and you will not be able to add a direct link to the Dedalo website.
 * Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Wikipedia articles should have as few links as possible, and those links have to be absolutely critical to the topic at hand. Sure, many articles violate this rule, but they're not supposed to. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Wikipedia articles should have as few links as possible, and those links have to be absolutely critical to the topic at hand. Sure, many articles violate this rule, but they're not supposed to. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank for you answer, In the next table you can see some articles or institutions that supporting the project.


 * This is part of documentation that we are recopilated, we are developers, not researchers, and therefore do not have all the existing articles or publications. Such as open source platform, we have no control over the number of copies (only direct downloads) or the number of references or articles published. We are also doing a compilation of the main institutions that have been downloaded Dédalo (this list will soon).

" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro Peña (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...this is difficult for me to help with, since I don't read Spanish. However, some of the things you put up don't really matter in terms of the issue we need to meet on Wikipedia.  For instance, the number of people that use the software doesn't directly tell us whether or not the software meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, although it may help.  So, no need to get that list (at least, not for us).  However, on the scholarly articles, I'm a little confused, because they don't actually seem to mention Dedalo.  For example, I searched ""Fonts orals: enregistrament en format audiovisual i explotació dels fons d’entrevistes", and I don't see Dedalo anywhere in the article.  Is it under some other name?
 * Actually, here's what I recommend--I checked [es.wikipedia.org Spanish Wikipedia], and I don't see an article there. If this software is in Spanish, and primarily used in Spanish speaking countries, and the sources are mostly in Spanish, it will make sense for you to try to create and add an article there first.  Then, if it seems to meet their notability guidelines (which may differ from ours) there is a way for you to ask for the page to be translated and brought over to English Wikipedia.  Do you think that might be easier?  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the article "Fonts orals: enregistrament en format audiovisual i explotació dels fons d’entrevistes" you can see the presentation of discrusión refers to the "Museo de la palabra" (http://www.museudelaparaula.es/web) based on the Dédalo software (some times named "AMOV" - archivo de la memorial oral valenciana), the first version of Dédalo was made for the Museum of Etnology of Valencia, and this first versions sometimes is named with the "Museu de la Paraula".
 * ...And OK, we try to make one article in Spanish wikipedia. Thank for all, (for you help), and we hope that when the article will be available in Spanish can be translated into English. (an another languages). Thanks. (and sorry for my English, I'm a Spanish, catalán, natural speaker...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro Peña (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Should the article be made there, and you want to bring it over to en.wiki, then Translation helps explain how to request help doing that.  You can also come back to my page and I'll try to help get the process rolling.  I can't actually help with the translation, but I can at least get the stub article up and running, and set up the proper templating to request translation.  I don't know how long translation will take--I've heard it varies widely based on the language and subject matter.  But I'm sure we can work something out eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * one more thing, if you want to see Dédalo in action and try it, I invite you to see the project page: Dédalo demo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro Peña (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WITI (TV)
Hello again Qwyrxian, could I get your input on this edit reversion and on this related comment  added to my talk page this morning by User:Mrschimpf. Thank you again for your time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Bombay, India vs Bombay india
All my edits are keeping in mind that there exists a page on Wikipedia titled 'Bombay india'. India is the name of a country and the person who created that page should have put a comma after the word Bombay and most importantly the word 'India'. Keeping in mind this, I created a new page titled Bombay, India. But many third party websites still recognize 'Bombay india'. Many people object to this but do not know how to put it up with someone at Wikipedia. Please advise any further action that I should take or please tell me how can I edit the title of the page Bombay india —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satyarthster (talk • contribs) 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!
Hello, Qwyrxian,

Thank you for undoing the last edit of my User Page. This is the first time in the nearly five years I've been editing Wikipedia that my User Page has been vandalised. If someone feels that I deserve to be blocked, or has any other problem with me, I wish they would come right out and confront me with it instead of using an annonymous edit to do so. Thanks, again. -- Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. The vandalizer came and added a big pile of "vandalism" warnings to my page too.  The block on the IP was for only 31 hours, so if that's a static IP, watch out for edits about a day from now.  Hopefully the person will have either gotten over whatever irritated them, or just find somewhere else to "play". Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

World Miss University
Hi, Qwyrxian

Added references and removed ip vandalism from the article. Unfortunately, it was abandoned for a long time and got some disturbing ip edits recently. Hopefully this helps restore it. We can discuss any other changes here on your talk page or the article's talk page if it's more appropriate. Thanks for paying attention. --John KB (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. I've withdrawn my nomination.  How did you find all of those references?  I really did honestly look, and couldn't find anything other than blogs and a few non-English sites.  What engine/source do you use to find sources?  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Google News. They have really improved their archive section. You'll love it. --John KB (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow...I swear that's what I did...I must have not clicked over to archive search and been stuck searching only recent stuff. Thanks for catching that.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, Thanks for rolling back Sudanese refugees in Egypt, it's a pain to try and do that with so many vandalism edits without rollback rights :) -- Methecooldude (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome...Huggle makes vandalism fighting much easier... Qwyrxian (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quinceañera
I have reverted your edit of the cited text Re: above article, as your observation of "highly dubious" is just a matter of your opinion. Had I not been in full knowledge that the statement is factual, I would not have put it in to begin with. Here it's not just factual, but it's also backed up by a citation. I have, however, added a qualifier for clarification, for you would be right if your argument was that Mexican girls do dance before they are 15. That qualifier, however, is also given in the same citation. In any event, if you noticed how you left the article ("first ever public dance"), you are really supporting what the citation said, and yet taking the citation out - that would make no sense. Please do not revert my work again, thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * The way you rephrased the sentence is better. I'm still going to remove the "source", though, as it doesn't qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS. However, since the rest of the article is basically unsourced, it can stay unsourced unless someone wnts to challenge it.  I really wish we could get real, reliable sources on this topic.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Pete Bethune
Just let it die. GoN will argue for years if you keep replying. Don't feed the trolls.-- Terrillja talk  06:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan King
Cited as per your request. --78.100.202.64 (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you all about with the warning? You asked for a source, so I cited one. Wake up. --78.100.202.64 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Chill out. --78.100.202.64 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies again--I acted too fast. 99% of the time that someone adds a claim of pedophilia to an article, it's vandalism.  In cases where it is vandalism, it's obviously very critical to remove it as soon as possible due to potential damage to the subject of the vandalism.  I failed to notice that you had added a source, and that this was not a new issue on the page.  I have struck the final warning on your page.  I self-reverted to re-add your source, but then I did go back into the article to move the source and the info associated with it to the end of the lead, per standard formatting.  Again, very sorry for accusing you of vandalism and attacks.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No; you were right Qwyrxian - look more closely. They are cunning, these trolls! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.167.87 (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI re "Webometrics" rankings
A new IP, also an apparent COI, and a demonstrated willingness to push on this issue - User talk:161.111.78.102. JohnInDC (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I left another note, basically just echoing what you said, on that page.  I hope that IP goes back there and looks at it again so that we don't have to repeat the same message on another page....If xe does go to WP:ELN, and is turned down (as I can only assume they will be), but doesn't desist, I think we could probably argue that the site could be blacklisted.  Of course, if a consensus of other editors think it should stay, then I won't edit war to keep it out.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Did you know, BTW, that the system actually has a Wikipedia page?  Webometrics_Ranking_of_World_Universities.  I've just pared it down a bit - it blathered about how its quantitative ranking indirectly reflects academic quality, etc. and it seemed a bit too much like the article was trying to persuade rather than describe.  I expect a bit of pushback, so we'll see --JohnInDC (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just promotional, I don't even think it's notable--I'm AfD'ing it. The ranking system gets exactly 1 Google News Hit, and the regular Google Hits I get are either the company itself, school press releases, and blogs.  Now, if they (or anyone else) has good, reliable sources indicating that the rating system and or website meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB, and they add them, then it's fine, but I don't see any indication that this ranking system is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.   Qwyrxian (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is notable how both of you demonstrate in every single word your total lack of knowledge about Science and how it works. As I told you before the papers that backs our work and methodology has been published through a peer review system which by the way it is in accordance with the guidelines for Notability 3rd point of the Criteria paragraph. Webometrics editor (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are any number of things that are "true" but not "notable". Before insulting the intelligence or intentions of other editors, please become more familiar with Wikipedia and the standards that articles must meet for inclusion, where you will learn that "truth" is not the only criterion.  You can start with WP:Notable.  While you are doing this research, you should also examine the pages relating to assuming good faith on the part of other editors, the prohibition on personal attacks and insults, and for good measure the pages on conflicts of interest and username policies.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, actually, that's not true. First, I understand quite well how peer-review works (both how it helps ensure quality and also how it exists to provide justification to and for the existence of the industry of science). Second, the problem is the nature of the subject of the study. Let me try to explain by example. If a Academic X published papers about historical figure Y, and there were a number of papers, and those papers had been peer reviewed, it's likely that Historical Figure Y would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Note that, in and of itself, this would not qualify Academic X for an article--s/he would need to meet the further requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. If, later in his/her career, the same Academic published papers about academics, and, included in those papers, discussions of his/her own work, and those papers were also peer-reviewed, this would not, in and of itself, make Academic X notable under WP:BIO, because Academic X is not independent. Note that WP:N states explicitly that the publications must be both reliable and independent. If there were other, independent sources on Webometrics, then I could see using those articles as additional sources, but they cannot be the only claim to notability for the article. We're not disputing the existence of Webometrics. We're not even disputing that they may be important in some way. But we are claiming that they don't meet the standards required to be included in Wikipedia. Perhaps in the future more sources will make more clear, direct, and sustained reference to Webometrics' importance. At the moment, I continue to believe that they are not notable in a Wikipedia sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Our group has been discussing on all these issues, that look a bit strange for us as we are not experts in wiki edition and maintenance. As the problem is related to notability I am going to focus on it. The entry refers to a Ranking of Universities. a) This is the largest and most important result of a discipline (webometris or cybermetrics) starting midnineties that have research groups working on it all over the world. b) Independently of subjective comments, the ranking is providing results comparable to other major rankings (Harvard, MIT, Stanford in the top, Cambridge heading Europe, Tokyo for Asia, UNAM in Latinamerica) with a far larger coverage. c) The Ranking Web is the only source for many universities not included in others covering the Top 500, as we rank 12,000 universities. d) Because of this the Ranking is the most popular in developing and emerging countries (Sout East Asia, Latinamerica, Middle East, Africa), with more than 4 million visitors per year (more even than the famous Shanghai ranking, you can check it in Alexa). e) Probably the Directory of universities (covering 20,000 higher education institutions worldwide) is the largest and most updated in the Web, with web addresses for each entry. f) Finally this is the second world ranking to appear starting publishing in 2004. Most of the other university rankings have individual entries, so we can not understand why webometrics will not. Isidroa (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, first, I want to say that I really appreciate your sincere approach here--I can tell for certain that what you do is important to you. Furthermore, I'm very happy that you're trying to work within our system.  And I totally understand that the way that Wikipedia measures notability can seem quite odd to an outsider--I remember when I first started looking at Wikipedia a few years ago, I thought that the approach didn't make much sense.  Now I understand a lot more about the logic behind the systems in place that are needed to make it possible to draw a line between what is notable enough for inclusion and what isn't.
 * Now, to start off with, I want to say that what you wrote above does give me hope for keeping the article (the main one, at least). In order to do that, we need to show that Webometrics meets the primary definition of notability, which is a standard that every stand-alone article is supposed to meet.  The guideline (you can read the whole thing at WP:N if you want to) says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  At this point, you've provided two different things: reliable sources which are not independent (the articles by Aguillo, et al) and some unverified claims of widespread use (please note I'm not doubting you in the slightest, just that Wikipedia requires independent verifiability).  In addition, I was able to turn up more online references, but what I found didn't meet the requirement that the coverage be significant--that is, if a university just mentions in one sentence on its website that they are Rank X on Webometrics survey, that doesn't rise to the level of significant coverage.  What we need are clear, unambiguous, truly independent sources that discuss Webometrics in detail.
 * The reason why I said that what you wrote above gives me hope is that you point out that one of Webometrics' strengths is that it evaluates universities across the world, including many universities not regularly covered by other surveys. What I'm wondering is, do you have any information about any sources in some of those less served areas?  Note that sources do not have to be online, and they don't have to be in English (although it helps if at least one of the sources is in English).  For example, you say that this is "the largest and most important result of a discipline (webometris or cybermetrics) starting midnineties that have research groups working on it all over the world."  If that's the case, it seems to me that other scholars must have cited the work done by Webometrics, if it is as groundbreaking and large-scale as you state.
 * Furthermore, be sure you're not thinking only as scientists: the sources don't need to be in academic journals. Government documents (other than those directly associated with your research), newspaper articles, articles in reputable magazines, and other items can also count as reliable sources.  So if there are articles in newspapers examining the change in what's important to universities that discuss Webometrics, or government documents that talk about the importance of improving their state colleges' rankings on Webometrics, or something like that, that can all also qualify.   If none of these are available, it's much harder to make a case for notability (although it may be possible--on Wikipedia, there are always exceptions).  I have just added a request on the AfD that the discussion be extended for more comments so that we can have time to continue working on this.  As I said above (or on another page, I don't recall), I am sincerely willing to help you on this so long as we can meet Wikipedia's (idiosyncratic) notability rules.  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. I have two very simple possibilities: I collected several hundred sites mentioning the ranking using the following syntax in Google: link:www.webometrics.info. Many of these webpages come from developing countries where no other ranking alternative exits. Besides, the individual entries in the Wikipedia for the ranking editions of 2009 and 2010 were not done by us, so somebody thought that these results were "interesting". 161.111.79.82 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, neither directly helps this issue. The first might possibly be arguable, and I'll bring it up at the AfD to see what others think.  The other point doesn't really matter, because dozens of pages or more are deleted every day because one person found the subject interesting but they don't meet our notability guidelines.  In fact, that's actually the point behind the guidelines--to provide an independent way to settle debates about what is or isn't notable.  Keep checking for other sources.  For more information on what constitutes a reliable source, see WP:RS.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the links that User:Pgallert just added to the Webometrics page. A few more sources like that and I'm sure that the main page can be kept (the lists probably still need to go, as they really just duplicate your rankings, but, of course, they're not the main issue).  Do you know of any more articles like these?  Qwyrxian (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy
In part, this is a follow-up to the problems you are helping to resolve at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. I wonder if you have previously stumbled across this quote?
 * The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him. -- Leo Tolstoy, 1994

For me, this concept has resonance in a variety of Wikipedia settings. These sentences were introduced to me by someone interested in Metonymy and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion ≠ WP:Straw poll. Although I still haven't resolved what I think about the context, I do come back again and again to Tolstoy's words. Perhaps these words might be usefully stored in the back of your mind? --Tenmei (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku
So... much... rage... If he keeps at it, I don't know how long I can last before I finally lose it. It's as if he's unintentionally trolling us or something. (Well he's definitely trolling me at least) If he keeps with the reverts, he'll drag himself into 3RR soon, but still he's quite close to making me blow my top... --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 13:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just walk away, then. Someone else will come along eventually and fix the problem. For instance, I stopped last night just because I went to bed, but now that I'm awake, I've come back and taken care of it first thing--Instead of erasing, I've gone ahead and collapsed the discussion.  I'll go give him/her a warning now.  But what he's doing isn't strictly speaking vandalism, and won't exempt you from 3RR.   And since you know that this is a case where other editors agree with you, there's no need to worry about "harm" to the project, as he's working against policy and guidelines, so won't be allowed to continue here.  As for ja.wiki, I don't know what to recommend, as I don't know how much like our policies theirs are.  However, meta can take complaints of cross-wiki harassment.  Another thing that might help is for you to check and see if there are any admins on ja.wiki who are also active editors here (although I'm not exactly sure how to do that).  In any event, don't worry too much--at least here, POV pushers who don't know how to operate within our rules don't survive very long. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Park Vale F.C
Hello Qwyrxian. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Park Vale F.C, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion - WP:CSD only applies if there has been a previous deletion by AfD. If it has been previously speedied and the same reason applies, just re-speedy - I have tagged this one db-club. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake; I thought it got bundled into the AfD for the List article, but now I see it was just mentioned there as needing a prod. However, something makes me think that one of the previous deletions indicated a copy vio; I'll go check. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Park Vale F.C. was deleted on November 3rd under G12 as a copyright violation; since Nikkimaria deleted Park Vale F.C as non-notable, I can't tell if it is exactly the same or not. I'm having difficulty keeping track of the pages this editor is creating, since he/she is recreating them in slightly different versions but not fixing the fundamental problems (and, in the case of some of them, such a fix is impossible, because the subject itself was deemed non-notable). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and didn't find a copyvio source; in any case, if it's also clearly non-notable there is something to be said for using that as a deletion reason because, if the author understands it, it's more final - after a copyvio deletion he just rewrites and puts it back in. I have developed a boiler-plate form of words I often use after a copyvio deletion to say, by the way, don't bother fixing a copyright release because there are these other problems... Thanks for cleaning up my talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Your message
Hey Qwyrxian. As per your message on User_talk:93.104.155.32 I'm replying here. If you carefully compare the original entry and the changes that have been made by the vandal you'll see that the page was altered to slander both the company and the product as well as adding personal attacks to the page. As representative of the company I am taking the liberty of reverting those changes. I also contacted wikipedia in this matter, seeing as the vandal is impersonating the company by having registered the username "StarVault". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.155.32 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I was concerned that that was the problem--you are, in fact, misunderstanding what vandalism is. Putting in negative information, as long as that information is sourced, is neither slander nor vandalism.  Many many articles on Wikipedia contain "negative" information.  Our only rule is that the information be attributed to reliable sources.  I'll take a closer look now and see if that info was reliably sourced.
 * Second, though, you need to read WP:COI. Generally speaking, people who work for a company should never edit their own company or the company's products pages.  You may only do so if you strictly follow all Wikipedia policies--most especially, WP:NPOV. This is where I see you having problems. Again, your company cannot control the Wikipedia page to make sure it's entirely positive.  If the information is reported by reliable sources, it can remain in the article.  I'll go look at the details now.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A little addendum that might clarify things for you: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/361/view/forums/thread/297412/Yet-another-Starvault-scandal-Developers-erase-entire-article-from-Wikipedia-because-it-was-negative-even-though-it-was-all-true.html

As you can see this whole incident was instigated by people trolling our game by creating fake controversy.

Note especially these two:

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/361/view/forums/post/3906564#3906564 http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/361/view/forums/post/3906633#3906633

Edit: Looks like the mods at mmorpg.com took care of the troll thread. This line might shed some light on to who you are dealing with here:

The same IP, 96.56.222.82, also did this exact thing for Darkfall for 2009. (Meaning vandalising the page)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.155.32 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Qwyrxian, I was the source that was quoted by the Star Vault representative. I thoroughly read through most of what this poster on MMORPG.com posted and while I absolutely share no love for Star Vault nor their game, the edit in question was complete bias. The sources that are listed at the bottom are not linked to spots in the article and the particular section "Problems and Controversy" is full of an personal agenda rather than conveying information. What occured on the MMORPG.com forums was a user created a thread titled "Yet-another-Starvault-scandal-Developers-erase-entire-article-from-Wikipedia-because-it-was-negative-even-though-it-was-all-true". Early in the thread I posted about a editor named StarVault that seemed to edit in favor of an opposition to the game. That just wouldn't happen considering Star Vault is very protective of any negative information that releases about their game and they wouldn't openly criticize their own game. I check the IP addresses and sure enough the original poster and StarVault's IP's matched. To put icing on the cake the IP was based state side, while StarVault is a Switzerland company. Anyway, sorry to rant and if I didn't follow the rules correctly I apologize. I just created this to clear this up. Thanks Benthon (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Benthon

(Ec--this was directed to the IP): Again, you have got to stop using the word vandalism. That word has a very specific, non-negotiable meaning on Wikipedia--it only refers to people who are actively trying to make the Wikipedia worse. I believe the editor adding that information is sincerely trying to make the Mortal Online article better--the problem is that s/he simply misunderstands our rules about neutrality and reliable sourcing. That being said, as I mentioned on the article, I do agree that info should stay out unless someone provides reliable sourcing. I will try to keep an eye on the article to make it stays out; and, then, if it ever does get reliable sources, I'll try to keep an eye on it to make sure it stays in. I still strongly recommend you read WP:COI and consider abiding by its suggestions as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just read Benthon's comment, I admit that I am confused about who said/wrote what. In any event, my overriding point, regardless of whether or not the editor in question is a company representative, is that the info should stay out until sourced (I think you're agreeing with that Benthon).  As a side note, I'm going to go talk to StarVault about changing their name--we generally do not allow people to have a username that is the same as a company.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)