User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 42

Arcillaroja
Dear Wikipedian,

I am Marina. I am writing to you in order to clarify my fears. One of the users have been reverting my edits on Western Europe, as well as other European-related issues. I noticed, that his or her page is full of talk page entries related just to that. Would you mind to stay in touch with me? I read about vandalism on Wikipedia and I fear this is one of these cases... I hope, of course that I am wrong but... the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. By evidence I mean Arcilla's talk page as well as entry, and the fact that rather than move a critical comment from user page to a talk page, it was simply reverted. --Martina Moreau (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the most recent of those "littered warnings" date back to August of last year. Second, none of them are vandalism. Please review WP:VANDAL, as that term only refers to deliberately making Wikipedia worse, like adding "Western Europe is full of poop!" to an article. Third, and most importantly, that removal was 100% correct. Claims in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable in reliable sources. That claim you added appears to be your own personal analysis/opinion, which Wikipedia calls original research and we don't allow. There is no requirement, or even suggestion to remove comments like that to the talk page; instead, since you're the one who initially added the info, you are welcome to start a discussion there...but be sure that you cite reliable sources that explain why that info should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Martina Moreau has by now left a similar message on eight user talk pages, plus the Teahouse. I am wondering why I put effort into my own response. I see now that Toddy1 has responded appropriately on the user's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion Needed
We need you to decide if the Film Fail Awards, another negative award like the Golden Kelas which we decided to include due to it being an RS, were truly RS. Top Indian critics have come out with the nominations. I have discussed this in detail on the Dabangg 2 talk page and have added the awards to Jab Tak Hai Jaan, Agneepath, Dabangg 2, Ek Tha Tiger and am in the process of updating other sites. Zee is saying that the awards are user voted, but the Ghantas and Golden Kelas which we decided should be included were also user voted, just like the Filmfare Awards, Zee Awards, Public Choice Awards, etc. which all have user votes. So if you could pitch in and tell us why they're RS or not I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ashermadan (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion taking place? I see your note on Talk:Dabangg 2, but nothing from Zeeyanketu there. Also, just to help get the discussion going in the right direction, 2 points:


 * 1) I can't "decide"; no admin can. Admins merely have tools to handle behavioral problems, like blocking problematic users, deleting pages, and protecting pages. We have no special authority in content disputes. As an experienced user, I and many other admins can often help advise, but we can't just "rule" on matters. Everything is done by consensus guided by policies/guidelines.
 * 2) Speaking of advising on the rules, just like before, you're misusing the term "RS", or "reliable source". Deciding whether or not a source is reliable is a matter of evaluating that text (a newspaper article, a website, a television program, a book, etc.) and deciding whether or not it meets the standards in WP:RS. The awards cannot be an "RS" because they're not a source; they're a fact in the world. It is a fact that movie X was nominated for a Film Fail Award. Yes, we need that information to be verified in a reliable source, but you clearly have that. However, that isn't relevant question, because just being mentioned in a reliable source doesn't guarantee inclusion. Instead, we have to decide what information is important enough to include; there's no strict policy on this, though WP:UNDUE does help guide us. The question is whether or not the fact of the nomination/"winning" of the prize is important enough to the movie's story to deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia article. That is, a blogger makes a list of "awards", it's probably not important enough to mention. If a website or magazine does, it depends on how important the website/magazine is. One way to check that is to look at how often these "awards" are mentioned in independent RS, but there are other factors. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your moderation needed in the Iyengar & Vadakalai pages.
User:Mayasutra had deleted some well sourced info' in the Iyengar & Vadakalai article without consensus. Although other experienced editors(Sitush & others) have edited the section on Genetics & ethnicity and have allowed the revision to exist, Mayasutra has been making some major changes without consensus. Here's a link to his talk page comments -,. The user has been abusive by calling names, and says that an "edit war is the only means to get me(hari7478) to agree to dispute mediation". In the same discussion i've expressed my views as to why i didn't agree to it. I've reverted them back to their original revision. Please help. I've requested for page protection in both cases. Please look into it. Thank you. Hari7478 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hari7478 is again misquoting. I said If this goes into an edit war, there is nothing you can do except agree for mediation. Considering how he has been vandalizing the articles Iyengar and Vadakalai by misquoting sources i expected this to go to edit war. Anyways, he now needs to reply at ANI page on misquoting sources. Thanks.--&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra
 * No, you said, "Expecting editwar, admin intervention and mediation. " You intentionally made an edit that you knew was part of an edit war. That's arguable blockable. Luckily for you, another admin chose to protect the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What happens if there is no admin intervention earlier on? Please do not tell me Hari7478 does not know it was heeding to edit war. --&#61; No &#124;&#124;&#124; Illusion &#61; (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Release Map
Hi, the Ra.One page has a release map exactly like the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page. Should we keep it or should we take it out? It's your call. Some editors want it while others don't. Should I just remove it? Also, the user Fideliosr who you warned before here by saying he would be blocked if he launched another personal attack against an editor is back at it. I requested some help in determining if a source was RS or not. Instead of contributing to the discussion, he launched another personal attack against my editing and said "why do you have to spend all your life adding negative awards to films of certain actors and positive one to some others?". Basically he's accusing me of being a biased editor. I have maintained the awards sections of various article by adding positive and negative awards just like we decided on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan talk page. I consider this a personal attack and was wondering what I have to do for this person to have some action taken against him. He joined Wikipedia in December and claims he's been monitoring my edits for years. That's a lie. I joined Wikipedia 7 years ago, much earlier than this man who showed up a month ago. Not that you care but this man abuses me on Twitter constantly and ever since he discovered I had a Wikipedia profile has been being uncivil towards me here. What should I do? Can you help? Ashermadan (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On Ra.One, you'll have to raise the matter at that talk page. I'm trying not to add new unnecessary pages to my watchlist/disputes to my time, so I'm afraid I don't have time to weigh in there at the moment. As for the comment from Fideliosr, that does not appear to be a personal attack in any way; rather, the editor seems concerned that your selective choice for where to place various awards may not be neutral. Now, I'm not saying that it is, but raising a concern about someone else's following of policy is not a personal attack. It can be harassment if it is repeated and unsubstantiated, but a one off comment doesn't rise to that level of problem. Unfortunately, while I do feel bad that you've been harassed off-wiki (it's happened to me too, and gotten very bad at times), there's not much we can do about here. However, if he really is carrying the feud over to here, and you can show evidence of harassment on Wikipedia, then evidence from your off-wiki problems could (sometimes) be used in disciplinary proceedings against him. You can't post the evidence on-wiki, but you can email it to Arbcom. But first, you have to be certain you can show a problem on-wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

106.220.247.51
You just reverted = all IP's edits are copyvio so far as I can tell (not having checked them all) from papers at http://www.languageinindia.com Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bina Etawa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black soil (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) 12:09, 28 January 2013 (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) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:68.98.32.250
As our resident caste-article admin, you might want to keep an eye on IP User talk:68.98.32.250, who is persistently making unsourced additions and changes to Saini and is ignoring warnings. It's a US IP address - don't know if it's static, but it hasn't changed in the past week -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the article to my watchlist. Since you've just issued a final warning, I might as well wait for one more edit. But I will drop a caste sanctions warning. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's continuing at Saini from different IPs (one India, one US) - time for semi-p? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And 68.98.32.250 is back again (Sorry to dump all this on you while I take my admin break - I really should stop watching these articles for a while) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk page
Ooops, sorry for that, but the conversation was already archived thats why I blanked it. Plea$ant 1623  ✉  13:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Sorry as well. After I fixed the Archive box (I don't know why the bot didn't add one automatically), I see the archived discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoax articles
Hello! I have recently tagged some articles under WP:CSD. They are not in article space but in AfC space. But they actually are not in any of the AfC categories, just their link starts that way. All these are about some fake TV shows that claim to air in India. Some are also about the fake TV actresses. Of all the admins that i know who work on Indian articles, you seem to be the only one still active. (Sad thing actually that most of them have quit.) I came here to know if tagging with CSD#G3 is sufficient or not? Will non-related admins also know that its a hoax? Should i raise AfDs instead? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 04:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, on the first one I looked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sapna Hai Aur Bidaai Hai, I wondered if maybe it wasn't a hoax, but rather a show that hadn't aired yet (note the start date of 2013). But then i looked at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vivaah, and saw that it claimed to have showed more than 100 episodes, so clearly if that were real it would be possible to find info about it...and I don't see anything when searching with several different search terms. As such, they're definitely hoaxes in my mind. The worry, of course, is that G3 requires that the hoaxes be "unambiguous", and some admins are hesitant to pull the trigger when it isn't fully obvious (and to some admins, nothing about India is obvious, true or false). But it's probably the best tag; if no one were to delete them, you'd have to take them to MfD, which is a pain for an AfC draft. But I'm going to delete all of them now, and block the user who created them (the same IP address has been blocked before for copyvios). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the deletion. I am still finding and tagging more such articles. This IP seems to be very creative but in wrong business. And thanks for the tip; will take them to MfD in case they are rejected. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This one is funny! It had 1100 episodes and featured SpongeBob and Plankton also. Alas! The show ended!! §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 08:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ended? Oh no! I want to see that one :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, that's over 30 you've found. There's articles about the shows, about the seasons, about awards the shows have won...seriously what is up with this? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Many were created back in June 2012. By not tagging them with AfC tags, but putting them in Wikipedia space, it was easy for them to escape attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Huussh!! I guess i am done now. Found few more. You might wanna block this ip User talk:82.44.166.194 too. They have produced a dozen of these articles. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since that IP address hasn't edited since July, I can't block it; IP addresses generally change owner over time, so it's probably allocated to a different person now. In fact, it could very well be the person now on the 95... address I blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it another 30 years and some community will probably claim descent from these mythological TV series. They'll be kshatriya, of course.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WT:GAA
Hello there, I'm contacting editors who have recently contributed to this talk page to let you know about an ongoing discussion to do with the naming and categorisation of GAA counties, teams and players. If you'd like to give an opinion this would be very welcome. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  08:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Images
Hello, if it is not too much trouble would you be able to go over the latest images I have uploaded to the Banknotes of the Sri Lankan rupee article? I havent had the best of luck in the past, so I just want to know if everything with the license is all right and not violating anything. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to apologize, because I'm weak in image copyright law...and money is covered by not only copyright, but often additional laws (as that template you put on the files says). I've asked at the help desk, and hopefully someone knowledgeable can set us both straight. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I saw your note.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

About your Edit at 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff
Well, You said that "This clearly needs to be cited before inclusion" on edit after mine, at 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, about the Pakistani casualties. Well if thats so, then what is the need of Wikipedia's "citation needed" ??? Anyway, thanks for it, I have started looking for the Pakistani casualties at the incident and shortly I will submit them! Thanks! Regards, User:Faizanal-badri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanal-badri (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The citation needed template can be used at editor's discretion; it will tend to depend on the nature of the claim, the type of article, and how well sourced other information is. If someone writes down on an article about a random moth that it usually lives for about 3 months, a citation needed template would be fine. Here, though, you're talking about casualty figures for a fairly significant military conflict; that's not the sort of thing we should have hanging around without verification. For example, what if I added that there were 50,000 Pakistani casualties...or that there were zero? Furthermore, this specific article has had people inserting a variety of different, contradictory casualty info before. The very specific nature of that claim, along with the importance of the information, along with the contentiousness of any article/edit related to the Pakistan/India conflict, along with the history at that article means that I felt the information should not be in the article unsourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok for sure! I agree with it and thanks for your help about citation needed template!!! By Faizan (talk) 10:15, 04 February 2013 (UTC)

Cinema Of Andhra Pradesh
Have you submitted the draft for the RFC, I did not see any on the Talk page of either Cinema of Andhra Pradesh or Cinema of India ? I do not have a link to the page of the RFC for participating and representing my part, please provide the link. RTPking (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was waiting to see if Vensatry had any comments. But I know s/he's been editing since I left a final note, so I'm going to go ahead with the RfC now. You'll see it on Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh soon. However, please don't immediately go and provide some sort of extended response. You've already made your argument clearly on that page. The whole point of an RfC is to get input from new editors. Sure, you can join in the discussion, but it doesn't help if right after I post it you go repeat the same arguments; one common problem with RfCs is that outsiders often are less likely to get involved if there are walls and walls of text to read. So give it some time for others to respond, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay I will wait for others to participate. RTPking (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

prior to DRN
I want use challenge and remove option of Wikipedia to challenge some of the content in Sri Lankan Tamil people. I have challenged unreferenced content in |here. Also I questioned the different facts in links in |here. But since I can't go alone to the DRN I tried to start an edit warrying with someone. But they are reverting my edits after logged out. Seems like they using dynamic IPs. How can I act on these situations ? Do I needs to asked to protect the page so no IP can edit the page ? Himesh84 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There have only been 2 ip edits since you last edited. The first one is basically just vandalism, since it removed reference wrappers but not the citations inside, which just screws up the formatting on the page. The second removed your CN tag with no explanation; as a general rule, removal of maintenance tags left in good faith must be explained. I've reverted to the last version you had. Also, be careful in your phrasing above; it sounds like you're saying you "tried to start an edit war"; first, that's not what you did (you made 1 good faith change and left a note on the talk page), and second, if that's really what you intended, you should be blocked. Edit warring is never acceptable. Ever. Edit warring is by definition a bad thing. But making changes to an article, then discussing those changes, is not an edit war. For now, leave the maintenance tag up for a while and see what happens. In a week or two, if no one responds on either the article or the talk page, then remove the information you think is not verified. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my bad English. Yes. It is a change with good faith. Thanks lot for the infomation Himesh84 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84
This is just a quick note to let you know that I have mentioned you on a ANI thread regarding Himesh84's behaviour.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hillcountries has | reverted the last change done by me. What can I do on such a occasion ?
 * First obi2canibe inserted 2 tags after clarifying one. But in talk page I have answered to the his concerns (start point of the conflict, Tamil presence before 13 th century, Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonisation; Standardisation; and Communal Riots ) using verified sentences. He hasn't verified his opinion which he used to claims no neutrality and reverted unverified opinion by him.
 * He was asked and promised to justify factual errors tag but he claiming something else (neutrality).
 * > Neutrality - You recommend him to start by section wise.
 * < This leaves three tags:"Lack of references", "Neutrality" and "Factual errors". You have asked me to explain the last in detail and I will do this, though it may not happen immediately. Himesh84 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first thing you can do is to not have removed the tags. There is a clear consensus on the article's talk page that the tags are correct and must remain until the problems are fixed. If you want to try to change that consensus, start an RfC or other form of dispute resolution. I don't know if this is just an English problem, but we have explained on the talk page why the sources are needed, and you haven't fixed the problems. Please don't take the next sentence in any negative way, but is there any possibility that you would consider contributing to your native language Wikipedia rather than this one? I think that part of the frustration for both you and for other editors interacting with you is that we've tried to explain problems several different ways, but you don't seem to understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Quotes? Not really
The "quotes" are not really quotes. They have been chosen as signature-statements for each character and they are delivered in the opening sequence of each episode. Again, all anyone has to do to research the importance of the "quotes" is to paste any of the deleted quotes into a search-engine, (Google), and pages upon pages will be returned. The, "quotes"<(misnomer), are, again, anticipated every season. They, (the misnamed, "quotes"), are referred-to and speculated-about in media and online. Wikipedia has been the only source of the signature-statements, assembled in such an easy-to-find fashion. ALL-sourceble, referenced, important, etc. I am sorry that there is a misunderstanding about the importance of the siggy-lines, but that is the consequence of editors who are not familiar with the material that is being discarded. If you need any more info. that would help you to comprehend what is really going-on here please let me know but I am getting frustrated by the way that this is being handled.24.0.133.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Opening_comments_by_24.0.133.234 you have been added I hope that you can participate24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Explain Please
http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/?db=enwiki_p&user1=Boing!+said+Zebedee&user2=Qwyrxian&user3=24.0.133.234+&namespace=0&namespace=1&namespace=2&namespace=3&namespace=4&namespace=5 You have involved yourself in a dispute involving an American television show. Have you made yourself familiar with the content of the topic being discussed? Also-What is your relation to user boingsaidZebedee and seeing how your are apparently an expert on rhetoric and the Indian caste system, why on Earth have you put yourself into a dispute about an American television show? I don't quite understand how one person could be such an expert in Indian internal affairs AND also claim to be a native English speaker?

As you may be aware, I have problems with editors who insert themselves into topics of which they know nothing AND who proceed as-if they are not completely understanding the points being raised.(especially when they use admin. power to achieve that) Specifically editors who claim to be coherent in the English language, but their actions clearly demonstrate a vast ignorance of what is actually being discussed. If THAT is what has attracted you to the current dispute (The Real Housewives), I am sorry if I have done something to personally offend you, but as an American, I am under constant contact with people who speak English, but who have no idea what they are being told, or what they are saying-they are practicing speaking English!

As you can imagine dealing with this on a daily basis is beyond annoying(Amazon-Comcast-Equifax to name some recent US companies who have outsourced their workers and made jokes of themselves in the process but they are learning to avoid that mistake)-- and it is scary again, as an English-speaking American to think about how dangerous these people could be in certain circumstances not to mention the waste of time basically trying to communicate with the equivalent of a rock. While also realizing that you are giving these human "rocks" your personal data. So-yeah, that is my explanation for what could be presumed incorrectly to be a problem with people who do not understand English and I am seeing a lot of that HERE on Wikipedia as well and yes i mention it and call it out. Is THAT why you have inserted yourself into something that I am involved-in? For the record I personally admire people who can speak, read, or write different languages. What I cannot respect is intentionally trying to mislead someone(s) to believe that someone has understanding when they have proven that they do not. Because I TEST them and they FAIL. And then they go "admin" on me. It is when they "win", that I realize that there is a serious problem. I'm just wondering because as I mentioned this is about an American TV show so I cannot understand why so many international editors are getting involved. Just so it is clear I have no problem with people who are from countries other than the US, and who speak additional and different languages, as long as they can demonstrate an understanding of English when they are involved-in a topic that is being discussed in English. I have seen too many editors with admin. credentials who have outed themselves for not understanding what they are doing. even-if they are fluent in 'cracy or short-cuts,code, rules, whatev. And I have stated and made it my mission to help these editors-(and for that matter outsourcers who take jobs that they have no business taking-away from fluent speakers and understanders of English) out themselves for whatever it is they are up-to. Is there a problem with that? I consider it my duty as an American citizen to protect my country from people who speak English to Americans yet who do not understand what they are saying or what is being said to them. And yes I have noticed that people from India are the number one offenders in this problem. I have found that some particular people from India have a tendency to pretend, act-like, give the false impression, intentionally mislead, (that) they know what is going-on when they do not and I have a problem with anyone who does that.24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a lot to respond to. Okay, first off, I am a US citizen; I happen to live in Japan, but I am now and will probably always be one. And while it has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia, the idea that the US is or should be "English only" is 1) historically wrong, and 2) fairly offensive. in my opinion. But we're not here to debate the politics of US linguistic policy, so back to the Wikipedia stuff.
 * I'm no expert on Indian castes. What I am an expert on is Wikipedia policy (or, at least, I like to think I'm pretty knowledgeable about it). It happens to be a field with a lot of problems, and one that I just randomly ended up helping in the area.
 * As for this particular topic, I only came to it because I saw the discussion on WP:ANI. I decided to have a look at the article being discussed. After looking at it, the Wikipedia-compliant solution was so blindingly obvious that I decided to chime in. Am I familiar with the subject? No. Is that relevant? No. Because those pull quotes cannot be in the article. They serve nothing other than a decorative purpose. Even given your clear and detailed explanations, I am still certain that they do not belong there. At best, they are primary source material, which is something we generally want to avoid. Despite the impression I get of your overall opinion of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not here to collect every single piece of information about a particular subject. I understand and believe you that these quotes are shown on every single episode. But that still makes them "fancruft". If you want to cover all of the tiny minutiae, either found or find a "Real Housewives..." wiki. The fact that someone went to a lot of effort to include them is irrelevant. The fact that this collects them all neatly in one place is irrelevant. The information is (in my opinion) obviously and completely outside of our mission. As I've said several times, if these "signatures" have been the subject of secondary commentary, well, then, fine, include that commentary. But not just the quotes, and not in a decorative fashion.
 * As for my own English ability...well, feel free to evaluate it yourself, though I'd be quite shocked if you find it lacking in any way (other than the fact that I can be a bit careless when I write quickly). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I forgot one of your earlier questions. Boing! said Zebedee is another long term user of Wikipedia, who also happens to work in the Indian caste topic. He used to be an admin, and so we have interacted quite often. I don't know him personally (I assume Boing is male, the name just sounds that way). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes the solution was obvious from the beginning and that was what I repeatedly asked the other editor involved in it to do.(discuss on the talk page and try to reach consensus) As a matter of fact I agree with most of what you have said, except for where you speak to the topic of the "quotes". IF the info. was on the talk page, you may have seen where I have already explained to you that we are most definitely NOT talking about "pull quotes"-although I can see how you incorrectly drew that conclusion. Did you by any chance look at the youtube link that I posted on the DRN page? That is an exact illustration of what is being discussed. It is a short video and if you get a chance to watch it you can call the quotes whatever you like. I am attempting to reach an understanding of terms but I am being trolled and harassed with policy. As far as going further with secondary commentary-I have also posted examples of that as well. Take any single "quote" that was deleted, enter it into search, (like Google), and there you have it-secondary, thirdary etc. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&q=You+either+love+me+or+you+hate+me+there+is+no+in+between&oq=You+either+love+me+or+you+hate+me+there+is+no+in+between&gs_l=serp.3...6641.11100.0.11515.23.23.0.0.0.0.244.1568.22j0j1.23.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.serp.coQ1cdYkBmY I also object to drastically changing the format of what I now want to call signature-title-card-opening-thingys, from the way that it was originally formatted in the Wikipedia topic pages. The way that it was was nice and clean and understandable by anyone who landed on the page who had ever watched the show. IF there needs to be something to define the "quotes" better for people who have never watched the show, I was hoping that that also could be discussed as something like that would probably be an improvement and help to prevent the material from being deleted in such a casual way. Wikipedia is an almanac-like compendium of information. Seeing how the "quotes that are not really being used-as quotes", are changed on a seasonal basis, it is my argument that they are perfectly suited for a resource such as Wikipedia. I actually am correct here so it is only a matter of time before someone who understands the problem comes-along and realizes that someone has deleted ALL of the "quotes". Valuable material that possibly was not formatted properly, but definitely belonged on Wikipedia. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't include the lyrics to songs (except when secondary sources comment on them—then we include what the secondary sources say). We don't include excerpts from movie dialogues (except when secondary sources comment on them—then we include what the secondary sources say). And we shouldn't include this. As for the "sources", you gave me a google search, and a quick perusal of the first few pages doesn't show any reliable sources. But if you find some, then great! Add what the reliable sources said about the quotes. Don't add the quotes themselves (or only add as much of them is needed to make the secondary sources understandable). This is not valuable material. It's WP:FANCRUFT. You are welcome to think that you're correct, but I am as well, and since at the moment you're clearly in the minority, the onus is on you to establish that there is actually a consensus that agrees that these quotes fit within our mission and policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The items are not lyrics.Including secondary sources could confuse the format but it could possibly be done in a non-obtrusive way. You have not given a valid reason why it should not be included and you are speaking in plural-form again. We have been using Wikipedia as a resource to find this specific material AND it has been restored before. Sorry if you do not consider references that speak to the question directly to be legitimate but I assure you that there are reliable secondary resources that are acceptable for anyone that are available-there are 20 plus quotes we are talking-about here over numerous pages. I know that I am correct. I would be willing to provide sterlingly reliable secondary references NY Times, TMZ, Radaronline,print journalism... but I think that it is important to define the items. (not quotes)---AND I really think that it is asking too much to insist that every single ONE of 20 or more what are not really "quotes"-be sourced unless someone else wants to help with that because it is there and the ultimate source is the youtube snip which defines what we are really talking about for those who do not understand that they are not quotes. Before I would do so much work for free for Wikipedia which I do not feel is necassaryI would spend my time grabbing the mistakingly-quoted-not-quotes, and putting them somewhere else. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And since you are obviously a multilingual expert, and I am not, could you imagine if someone such as myself presumed to try and learn Japanese or any language, but let's say Japanese because I seriously know about two words in that language and Heaven help us if I dared to try and read it or write it... if I wandered over to the Japanese Wikipedia and presumed to begin editing there just to practice familiarity with the language or just because I could? I wouldn't dare. But maybe I could fake it enough to gain admin. status on the Spanish-speaking Wikipedia, even-though I would be way out of my league there as well, but I probably could weasel my way into a few different-language pages AND gain admin. if I really wanted-to. Even though I see nothing wrong with applying any skills that I am confident-enough to apply correctly, I would consider it vandalism if I tried to edit or admin. the Japanese version of the Domo page for instance even-though I am somewhat personally obsessed with the Domo character, AND rice-flour roll-towers. I don't like to call editors out for vandalism but I have already been accused of that here more than once even though that is the opposite of my intentions. But vandalism is exactly what I consider applying administrative force to topics when someone has no intention of discussing or understanding the topic.24.0.133.234 (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Every contribution you make here convinces me more and more that you don't understand how Wikipedia works or what it's goals are. Your idea that the quotes are more important than the sources that discuss them is fundamentally wrong—Wikipedia deals in secondary and tertiary sources. We only refer to primary sources very hesitantly, and only when there is clear context. And, again, we are not here to be a collection of things that fans of the show might find interesting. Now, I could be wrong--maybe discussion will show that consensus is on your side, and that in this case primary sources are fine, and that the quotes are not decorative. Fine. Let's see what the discussion brings. Your comments here are convincing me more and more that I'm right, so I think you need to see if you can convince others. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * . I have to agree with Qwyrxian here. We do not use quotes, lyrics, images, video, or other content from primary sources as adornments to articles - what we strive to include is information about the subject of an article, sourced from independent reliable sources (as per WP:RS) that explain the subject. If we want to add contested material, it is necessary to show how the encyclopedic understanding of a topic for people with a general interest (rather than fans) is enhanced by the addition of new material. Wikipedia is absolutely not a repository of anything that a fan of a topic might want to see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

They are not "quotes" per se. The introductory statements for each woman who had a short biography paragraph on the pages were "what was said" (that's why it was presented inside-of quotation marks). The statements were removed from each woman's paragraph with the reason stated for removal being "quotes". That is probably the main reason why I asked that this be discussed. There were about 35 or more statements deleted. One for each character for each season that she was on the show. Some of the women had their own pages and the statements could be moved there but some only are noted on the Wikipedia page for the show.24.0.133.234 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's alright with both of you, let's have this conversation at the WP:DRN, because even though there are a number of people who watch this page, it's better to keep all of the conversation in one place. That way people who are interested don't have to try to reply in seven different places at once. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Socotra Rock
Hello I am "Sidpickle" (Ted) and put in a couple of alterations to the date for the survey of Socotra Rock by HMS Waterwitch that you smartly changed. No problem as they were not the most elegant of edits on my part. I have written to Mr Guy Hannaford, Researcher & Cataloguer, United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, Admiralty Way TAUNTON, Somerset, TA1 2DN to see if he can dig out the original report from Waterwitch so I will let you have this information if I get it and you can decide if you think it credible enough. You can always email him direct as he seems very helpful Email: [redacted]. I live in England so hope to pay a visit to UKHO later in the year to do some more research on HMS Waterwitch. My interest in the vessel goes back to the father of one of the owners when she was in private hands, so it is a bit tenuous but you know what it is like with research you get pulled around. Guy thought he sent me a copy of all the surveys of the Waterwitch some weeks back, but several years were missing due to them not yet being scanned. The work she did in 1910 was included but not 1901 unfortunately. Those for 1910 are: C3691	Ea		1909	2 June 1910	pl	Lieut H P Douglas "Waterwitch"	Malacca Strait Triangulation; C3760	China Sea fol 1	m = 0.04, 0.35	1910	2 July 1910	tr HOp 2660A, 1008	Lt R S Hancock "Waterwitch"	Soundings North East and South East of Kam Rank Bank; C3761	China Sea fol 1	m = 1.4	1910	2 July 1910	tr HOp 3028	Lt R S Hancock "Waterwitch"	Kamranh Harbour - Amendm?? To piers etc; C3762	Ee	m = 0.5	1910	2 July 1910	tr	Lt R S Hancock "Waterwitch"	Search for reported "Khiev Bank"; C4141	178c	m = 150.0	1911	25 March 1911	tr	Lieut R L Hancock "Waterwitch"	Kowloon Coaling Camber - Hong Kong; C4275	E	m = 3.0	1910	15 June 1911	pl	Lt R L Hancock "Waterwitch"	Singapore, Western Approach to (N Sheet); C4276	3c	m = 3.0	1910	15 June 1911	pl	Lt R L Hancock "Waterwitch"	Singapore, Western Approach to (S Sheet); C4277	E	m = 0.75	1910	15 June 1911	pl	Lt R L Hancock "Waterwitch"	Singapore, Western Approach Triangulation; C4278	E	m = 0.25	1910	15 June 1911	pl	Lt R L Hancock "Waterwitch"	Singapore Strait Triangulation; C4279	E	m = 12.0	1911	15 June 1911	pl	Lt R L Hancock "Waterwitch"	Quarry Bay.

Guy was the one that recommended looking up 'The Admiralty Hydrographic Service 1795-1919' by Vice Admiral Sir Archibald Day and by luck the only version available was in the reference section of our local library so I managed to photograph all the relevant pages to Waterwitch. It is a lovely book and I hope to get a second hand copy some day.

I assume we can obtain a copy of the original report from the commander of Waterwitch with reference to the Rock although I expect there will be a fee from UKHO. Sidpickle (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold off on actually ordering a copy, as I wouldn't want you to pay money for something that isn't helpful (unless you're ordering it any way for your own personal research). The citations we have there are pretty good, I think; I'm not sure that getting the original report would necessarily "answer" the issue, as we might have to report both dates. I know that's weird, but sometimes primary sources are rejected, or at least balanced against, secondary sources. It kind of depends on where the secondary sources got their info. However, we should put it in the timeline in the most likely date (based on what sources say). Tomorrow, when I'm feeling a bit more focused for this sort of thing, I'll take a closer look at the article and refs and advise. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just got the email reply from UKHO. B7973 (eh) is THE report from HMS Waterwitch August 1901 (see below) so I can do no more and suggest this goes in the timeline with the details of UKHO www.ukho.gov.uk. May I suggest you email Matthew Millard if you still want further confirmation?

From: Research  To: Ted Robbens <tedrobbens@xxx Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 15:16 Subject: RES02/13/066: Socotra Rock Yellow Sea

Good Afternoon Ted, Thank you for your e-mail. Guy has indeed moved on to pastures new in Intellectual Property however I will be more than happy to respond to your enquiry. After some brief research in our Survey Indexes I have found 3 Surveys that would be of potential interest to you. I have listed them below for your reference: B7782 (Eh)          Title: Search for Shoal reported by S.S. Socotra by HMS Waterwitch        Date: September 1900

B7973 (Eh)          Title: Socotra Rock   Date: August 1901

B9320 (16p)       Title: China Yellow Sea  Date: June 1900

After looking at Survey B7973 (Eh) in more detail it clearly states in the title “Socotra Rock, Found by HMS Waterwitch, August 1901”. This seems to be the Survey you are referring to below… I hope this information helps; it is good to hear you are planning a visit in the summer as you will be able to view this particular survey. If you would like any further assistance please do not hesitate to get in contact using the details below. Best regards, Matthew Millard Research Administration Manager United Kingdom Hydrographic Office Admiralty Way, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 2DN

Sidpickle (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the new info, I'm inclined to move the date to 1901, then leave a note that says that other sources say 1910. Do you happen to know how to cite a document like the above? Not specifically in Wikipedia format, but in APA/MLA/etc.? That is, what is the "key information" that is needed to identify those documents? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Your warning concerning LittleGreenRosetta.
Context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ys_(series)#Which_version_of_text_is_more_preferable_with_respect_to_grammar_and_the_MoS.3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_targetting_my_edits

You said, "You may not remove the comments of other editors on talk pages. You need to drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and this idea that every edit you make cannot be changed. This is a wiki. This requires collaboration and consensus building. If you are not interested in working in a collaborative editing environment, this is not the place for you. The next time you attack another editor or revert simply because you don't like something, you will be blocked."

I resent your accusation or attempted broad generalization of my position being that every edit made cannot be changed (unless added in the Talk Page though?? I could post anything in there without limits?) and that I am not interested in a collaborative editing environment. You're accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and that is exactly what I would say about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Little_green_rosetta (I just went through his Wiki Account a bit and saw a few accusations of him engaging in | edit-warring himself - he had been blocked as well as a result, | another case here.). Anyhow, in the original situation, I felt the prior individual excising my paragraph was doing it because of a particular grudge/animus. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I felt and I also felt the paragraph was good enough as is. You seem to be advocating that it's OK for those to undo or revert *my* changes/edits, but not the other way around simply because an adversary, LittleGreenRosetta, contacted you first about what happened and gave you his/her spin on things. This user made that section on the TalkPage as part of a harassment campaign that came about from a prior incident with somebody else. This was not because of genuine interest in the article and its improvement, it simply came about because of a grudge against me in particular. That's not well-meaning or a good-faith action to get a better result. It's simply animus and hate. Furthermore, how do I know that you're not friends with this individual and are judging this fairly? You really appear to be playing favorites here. Ysfan (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see you're a little calmer here, which is good. First of all, my complaints about your poor behavior were not only about your interaction with Little Green Rosetta. Let me list out the problems you've had in the last few days:


 * You reverted an obvious improvement to Ys (series)--an edit that fixed grammar problems, removed links that violate WP:EL, add helpful wikilinks, and was overall an improvement. You didn't seem to have any reason for doing so, other than to keep the article in your preferred version.
 * After that, you started reverting a whole bunch of NukeofEarl's changes, changes which were obviously good faith edits, that improved the encyclopedia. I have to assume you did it out of spite.
 * You then edit warred on Ys (series) to try to preserve the obviously worse version.
 * You created a category out of spite, that obviously has no valid use in Wikipedia. I don't know why you made it a category.
 * You reverted a legitimate RfC placed on the article's talk page, even though 1) starting an RfC to decide which version of an article is better is never harassment and 2) you're not allowed to remove other people's comments from talk pages (except your own, and in a few other highly select cases).
 * In the WP:ANI thread, you directly attacked other at least two other users.
 * You've now accused me of "playing favorites", despite the fact that you have no evidence. For the record, as far as I can remember, I've never interacted with LGR before. However, I've been on WP for many years and edited a lot of pages, so it's entirely possible we crossed paths at one point or another.
 * Over all, this is highly problematic. As I said originally, Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, meaning you have to work with others. Words that you write will inevitably be changed over time. When they are, if you disagree, you have to be willing to discuss the matter. You can't try to seek revenge, or attack other editors, or edit war to get your way. Are you willing to try to work in collaborative manner? Are you willing to agree to stop the personal attacks? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Review boxes
Just out of curiosity, wanted to read arguments that lead to deletion of review boxes from film articles that you mention here. Could you please direct me? §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I found out about it by seeing someone delete one on my watchlist. The easiest read is at [], which is where a set template that had these ratings was deleted; there's links there to discussions on the Film WikiProject. The quick summary is that there's always selection bias in choosing ratings, and what we want is 1) summaries of the ratings, which we can best get from aggregators like MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes and 2) descriptions of the types of ratings. Having read that discussion, I wholeheartedly agree, and just happened to remember that one or more of the Indian films I had on my list had such a box. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm! Thanks for the info. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 06:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Himesh84
Is this a reasonable solution? You know more about this so let me know what you think. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a starting point...let me look over things more and comment in ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is going cool. For me, not necessary to clarify reasons in ANI. But great if you can ask Tamils to cooperate with me to providing facts and I am happy to insert them. I have inserted the things mentioned by Tamils. Now they should withdraw tags until they providing facts to rest of the claims. Himesh84 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Two matters (only one of which matters)
About that fellow, I do hope after he is unblocked, he will write to me and become a wonderful wikipedian. Maybe he's a nice person who just got off on the wrong foot. I hope someone starts pusing the idea of "disengagement".

Now, are you aware that your archive box contains the word archive 45 times? :) Who designed that for you, DoRD? Ha! Consider using the fine example set by my awesomely coloured archive box. :)

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be great if he'd become a good Wikipedian...but we'll need to see a major change of attitude. The revenge reverts of someone whom he disagreed with is a pretty strong indication of a mentality incompatible with collaborative editing. I could speculate on causes...but what ultimately matters is that the behavior change, and quickly.
 * As for my archive box, it's one of the standard templates. I wish I had a way to make it smaller (like have mini-collpases inside, with like "Archives 1 through 10" or something), but that would require advanced coding skills. I'll take a look at yours! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You were straightforward, and that's a good thing. His revenge reverts could just mean that he doesn't yet know how Wikipedia works. Maybe figure it out and realize this is a good place to be. He knows the score now. His pick.


 * I've invested about 15 minutes hoping to get him on the right track. At least 9 out of 10 times, I'm wasting my time. But once in a while they get it, and then Wikipedia gets a good asset who contributes thousands of edits. The cost/benefit is worth it. I won't cry if we lose him, but I'd like him to stay.


 * Your new archive box, it's a peach! Of course, if that colour isn't your thing, you can always pick another. Best wishes, my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2013 (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) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Cinema of Andhra Pradesh DRN
Please comment, your input will be greatly appreciated. RTPking (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

THE DRN has been archived, without a resolution by bot. Whats the next step that can be taken? RTPking (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mediation is probably the next best step, if you Vesantry will agree to it. Alternatively, if you just want outside opinions, you could start an WP:RfC. If you want to do the latter, I suggest making a draft first, because it's very important that the initial RfC be neutral, and it's often very difficult for people to do, especially on their first try. In fact, I'd be willing to write the RfC text on behalf of the both of you. So, first, do you personally prefer Mediation or an RfC? Then we can see what Vesantry wants. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer an RFC, thereby everyone knows rather than just me and Vensatry, It will be the best as not just me and Vensatry but other are also involved. RTPking (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked Vensatry if s/he minds if I draft the RfC wording. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please initiate the RFC as per your convenient time. RTPking (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The RFC draft is fair and acceptable to me. RTPking (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * How long is the rfc to be kept open and would it be concluded based on comments ? Vensatry does not want to participate in the RFC for some reason... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTPking (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * RfC's generally run for at least 30 days. Vensatry's participation is basically irrelevant—if consensus comes down for one side or another, then you both have to follow it. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Martin Bashir article edits
It is getting a little frustrating trying to edit this man's "bio", since you keep removing everything. Martin cites himself as being a far left leaning liberal, but you remove that. He is cited, on Wikipedia, as using disingenuous methods to "get the drop" On his interviewees, but you remove that, he openly admits- on air during his broadcasts that he believes it is his place to ruin the conservatives/republicans and the TeaParty in particular, but you remove every article link detailing that message. So far, you have done everything possible to make sure that no one knows who he is, what he does, his tactics, his history or his beliefs. It would appear that you, acting as Wikipedia, are trying to make sure nothing negative ( though completely truthful) is said about him. I have attempted to insert no "commentary" or "opinion" as you claim- only facts, in evidence, as offered at Wikipedia or bonafide news organizations.

I think someone with less obvious bias should be called upon as a referee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a reliable source that says that he is a "far left leaning liberal", you can add that to the article, with attribution. In that case, we could even use his own words (per WP:BLPSPS), but you'll still need a specific citation (like, if it's a show, then you need the show name, the original air date, and, ideally, a time marker). If you can provide a reliable source that says his tactics are aggressive or tricky or whatever, you can probably add that to the article, though we'd need a very high quality source for such a claim. We must have those sources, though--this is how Wikipedia works. You can't just watch a show and make your own judgment about his opinions or tactics.
 * As for someone neutral...I don't think you could get any more neutral than myself. I don't have the first idea who Martin Bashir is. Without checking the article, I don't even know what country he's from (since you mention the tea party above, I assume it's the US). I've never heard his show. I'm trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Indented line

"If you can provide a reliable source that says his tactics are aggressive or tricky or whatever, you can probably add that to the article, though we'd need a very high quality source for such a claim. ". Like i said, "he is cited ON WIKIPEDIA" as using those tactics already at the TV show's entry. Furthermore, a reference to his tactics is cited there from a NY Times article. I am simply trying tout together a picture of the man on his personal page, from a variety of disparate WIKIPEDIA pages. In one instance (that you removed) I cited an external link that contained 15 separate articles, each referenced, detailing his actions. NewsMax is as bonafide a source as the NY Times.

As for your claim to be unbiased, well, your actions would say otherwise. Whether or not you know who Martin Bashir is, is not the concern; it is your removal of anything that would "appear negative" regarding his ultra left wing ideology. Everyone knows that Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization, but it matters not to me- I'm simply trying to describe the man the way he describes himself. I'll make one more attempt before just giving up, though, I would offer that these sorts of shenanigans are exactly why no institution of higher learning allows citations of "the wiki" in course work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, and I don't do this often, but, bullshit. I know quite a number of university professors that encourage their students to use Wikipedia. None of them allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference in academic writing, but that's because no decent college professor would ever allow any encyclopedia to be used as a reference in an academic paper--academics are supposed to site secondary and primary sources. The rejection of Wikipedia has nothing to do with an alleged left-wing bias, it has to do with the fact that it's a tertiary source, an aggregation in extreme summary style of much more detailed sources. Instead, many college professors recommend that students use Wikipedia as a good starting point for research, and then delve into the references to find more information. Furthermore, we have had hundreds of college professors actually partner with Wikipedia to have students edit! So take your anti-left wing crap and go post it on a biased forum somewhere.
 * As for the "source" you added, from their About page, "Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." That is a clear statement of partisanship, and shows that their goal is not neutral, reliable reporting, but pushing an agenda. Thus, they do not meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Indented line. And there we have it- you described yourself and Wikipedia quite clearly for all of us with your use of profanity and obvious bias; your rhetorical outburst betrays your previous anti-bias pronouncement. What you see as "anti- left wing crap" is, in fact, actual quotes, video and audio of the ACTIONS of the man.  They were not opinions or agenda driven observations, they were actual recordings of ACTION.  You just do not like the source, which is funny because over half of America distrusts the Ny Times and Washington Post (PEW Research poll, November 08, 2012)- which you allow.

As for the rest of your rambling diatribe: keep telling yourself that Wiki is a respected source and that no university allows encyclopedia references... That is a complete absurdity and we both know it. I am a university professor, and you couldn't be further from the truth. Encyclopedic references are specifically allowed within the context of general information. But it matters not as my exercise was mere fabrication.

This whole episode was a performance, in public, to explain to 3 of my students why they received failing grades on a project where they used the Wiki as a source. I couldn't care any less about Martin Bashir; he's just another extremist talking head, no different than Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. He was selected for the example because he was the guy on the TV when the students came in my office to make their case. Our University excludes Wikipedia exclusively due to it's abject inaccuracy on practically every subject where "general consensus" holds a particular bias. My initial examples were the subjects of: race, religion, political affiliation, perceived bias, climate change and economic recovery. We randomly selected four of the categories and designed the experiment to provide an accurate result. In every category, each of us attempted to insert ACTION (defined as the actual events) into the wiki page corresponding to the category, from a referenced source, but from a source with perceived bias against the general consensus bias. All of the links and verbiage were approved by the dept. and student advisory board, and, determined to be entirely accurate. Those were the rules... Had any two been successful, they would have gotten a "B" on their project. All four failed. Luckily for them, I am kind and gave them 25 extra credit points for this "test" so their project grades didn't kill them (academically).

Our standards and practices board ruled, "Wikipedia is entirely for entertainment purposes and serves only to reinforce the views of the general consensus." Due to that ruling, Our University physics dept. has renewed it's exclusion of Wikipedia as a source to be cited on anything- graded or not. Thank you for your assistance; my work here is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinsscience (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Luckily, as a college professor myself, I intend to not only tell students to read Wikipedia, but intend to conduct future classes that involve editing Wikipedia. And I still would never allow them to cite it. And if you (or other professors at your college) allow your students to cite, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica, then I feel bad for your students that you're doing them such a disservice. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources (actually, the best are quaternary sources, because they look mainly to tertiary sources like review articles to find the scholarly consensus on subjects)—they are intentionally broad and missing key details that a scholar actually needs to know. They generally don't show the breadth scholarly disagreement, which, of course, is where the real academic interest is.
 * Furthermore, what I find really fascinating is that what your "experiment" proved is that Wikipedia actually works. We excluded the attempt to provide a non-neutral statement about a living person without any references, and we required only the highest quality references in the article. No scholar would accept newsbusters as a source in a paper; a scholar trying to publish an article relying on that type of info would have their manuscript rejected in an instant (unless they were writing about the pseudo-news/entertainment industry). So, in fact, what you showed is that, at least sometimes, Wikipedia gets it right by requiring very high standards. The fact that half of America distrusts something means nothing: only 49% of people in the US think global warming is caused by human activity, and yet the consensus among scientists, scientific review boards, and national academies is something like 99%. Now, I'm not saying NYT is infallible, but at least it attempts to report accurately, unlike the newsbusters website you used. But, of course, if you really want to play that game, as of 2010, NBC reported that 53% of Americans use Wikipedia regularly. So, you know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)