User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 46

Request
Hi Qwyrxian, Flowers of the world has been removing filmography tables without explaining the reason so I was wondering whether you could comment on his talk page since you are quite active on Indian articles. T4B (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Flowers of the world has been warned numerous times before and has never once engaged in talk page discussion. It was beyond time for a comment—I've blocked for 2 days. I'm not monitoring any of the articles, so if the problem resumes after the block is up, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and will re-report if he continue to undo/rever without discussing with others. T4B (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian, could you look to Anushka Shetty's article since the recently blocked user is continuing to add unsourced contents on BLP articles. T4B (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 2 weeks. It was a borderline call, as the info wasn't really harmful, but given that this has been a long term problem for the user, we need to get him/her to understand the rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

HillCountries
Can you please help HillCountries to find boudaries of Rajarata. I have given link and he is reverting edits saying there is nothing in the page. You can go to the page directly from this link. I have grabbed the sentences to talk page. I guess he didn't read the book, but reverting saying he can't find it. --Himesh84 (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion continuing on article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply --Himesh84 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

92.20.178.158
This is about Sri Lankan Tamil people. Users asked to provide references to claim Sri Lankan Tamil people are natives. But without providing references some logout user adding same claim to the article. Can you take some action for unreferenced materials ? --Himesh84 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think the edit is wrong, go ahead and revert it. I don't see that you've been edit warring on this, while I do think the IP addresses are. If you do revert, please say something like "unsourced, see talk" (or more detail is fine), then start a discussion on the article talk page. If an IP again reverts without discussion, I'll semi-protect the page. Please note that this in no way is me condoning your version; I have no idea if SL Tamils are just Tamils who live in SL or are Tamils who are native to SL. But IP editors are not exempt from the need to discuss edits, and I see that there was at least a little bit of discussion on this before in the archives. If a discussion does begin, though, both sides will need to produce sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply --Himesh84 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Early history of Jaffna kingdom
Hi, I want to rename this article to Early history of Jaffna. Current article title have big syntax issue.

Kingdom doesn't mean only land. It includes land(area),king(dynasty ),people(ethnic). We can individually talk about early history of about 3 before establishment of the kingdom. But can't talk about early history of the kingdom before establishment of the kingdom. If someone says early history of a kingdom, actually it can't go beyond the establishment of the kingdom.

Other thing is the land, people lived in Jaffna was under kingdom of Anuradhapura and kingdom of Pollonnaruwa before 1215. Can you please tell me what is the process of renaming ?

--Himesh84 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The safest approach is to start a move discussion on the article's talk page. If you go to WP:RM/CM, there is a template that you can copy and paste onto the article's talk page to start that discussion. If the move were uncontroversial, then you could just do it directly yourself...but from what I've seen, nothing related to Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan history is ever uncontroversial, because there seems to be this tenuous link to modern day political/revolutionary movements. As such, even though starting move discussion is a little slower, it's less likely to lead to edit warring. Also, you should probably add a note on Talk:Jaffna kingdom, since that page is probably better watched than the Early History page. Normally an RM discussion should run about a month, but if there is no response after a week or so, I think it will be ok to move then. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply --Himesh84 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons have been put back, against MOS, in "List of Iron Chef America Episodes"
Late in February you were significantly involved in a discussion on this article's talkpage about following MOS by removing the flag icons. Someone waited a month and went back and put them in again today. Just a heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.19.34 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted; I'm also watching the article, so I'll see if it persists. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

He's back with a new IP address
Remember This Guy who has been banned multiple times for making a edit against the general consensus of the users of the page? Well apparently, he's been issued a new IP Address here, and proceeded to make the same edit, yet again. And in a 1-2 punch, also violated the civility rules by his "commentary" in the edit summary section. As you can clearly see. NECRAT Plates On 04:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I semi-protected the article indefinitely, and told the new address that any further civility violations will result in a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Socks
Hi, Seems like an old sock puppet is back Royal Preparatory School‎. Cossde (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Old sockpuppet joking - try rewording tactics or A7 rule for Thurstan College Colombo 7, Thurstan Road Colombo 7(208.76.88.154 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)).


 * I've semi-protected for a month. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Barelvi Article,some suggestions needed
Please guide me to understand , Can on the basis of a single personal opinion a large Movement,be written as mixing up with its opposite movement ?( Sunni Barelvi Movement with Shia Movement.) I am requesting exceptional sources for this major baseless claim which is also not clear about mixing? This statementIn more recent times, the Barelvi movement as a whole has begun to mix with Shi'ites more often than before.I think that this is fringe theory and exceptional claim,am i right in this regard?The whole statement is giving an impression to general readers that Barelvis mixed up with Shias.As a matter of fact Barelvi leaders have issued verdicts (fatwas) against Shias and don't mixed up with Shias anywhere.Both have different faith and beliefs and have separate Mosques and Institutes.


 * I have objected to Arun Shourie,non neutral author on the basis of his his membership with communal political party and his with involvement in anti-Muslim activities and writingsplease guide me Is this proper way to identify non neutral source?

There are other issues also and I am and was discussing them.I hope your suggestions and mediation can be helpful to maintain neutrality and balanced version on the Article.Thanks a lot.Msoamu (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the sake of neutrality,Why this point of view can't be written in the Article ,Barelvi Movement is also considered a moderate and peaceful Movement(with sources) when it is written that Analysts have claimed that the Barelvi movement is as affected by intolerance and radicalism as other Islamic movements in the region.


 * I have asked some questions of you and MezzoMezzo on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Dialects map
Hi. You are hereby invited to the discussion at File talk:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Chauhan
Hi. We have an IP repeatedly making an unsourced redlinked addition to the "Notable people" section at Chauhan. I've been reverting and warning, but they're IP-hopping now. What do you think - maybe blocks or page protection? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely WP:INVOLVED there...but the addition of a non-notable 17 year old is so much on the obvious side that I could probably get away with protecting. It's stopped now, so let's see if the person learned something. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks, it looks like it's stopped for now. I don't think WP:INVOLVED would be a problem for a short protection in this case, as it's so obviously an inappropriate addition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking back over several months, I don't see a single IP edit at Chauhan that has not been reverted - it's all non-notable and/or unsourced additions. So I can see this as a possible candidate for a long-ish semi-protection - I'll keep watching it and maybe request it at WP:RPP if necessary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly watch the article Gilgit–Baltistan
This is just for your information. I think "'Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory under Pakistani control.'" —sounds a lot more neutral and objectively accurate than "'Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan.'" Kindly keep a close eye. DS has got involved again. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the matter, sorry. I was actually thinking of taking that article off my watchlist soon, as I'm paring back the number of issues I'm focused on. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Would a terse comment here be too much to ask of you? I saw your edits on that page. I reckon your perspective is valuable. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars Don't template the regulars--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

−
 * My apologies; the info you were inserting in Egg (food) was so obviously inappropriate that I assumed you were a new user. In any event, please go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter there if you still think it should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What's to discuss? Anyone with an appropriate enough intelligence to edit here should know that there is a difference between pop culture and trivia. The only thing inappropiate was those digsusting reverts. Don't worry, I won't add it back, but I do walk away the only moral editor in the situation and for that I have dignity.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ramdasia
Hello,

Can you keep a watch at the at the Ramdasia article page and provide your inputs if it should be merged with the Chamar page. The user Sikh-History is on an agenda has been constantly deleting sources and not providing reliable sources for his edits TimesGerman (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Maker Studios
Hi Qwyrxian, I came across this a few hours ago and reverted some vandalism. Since then an editor you blocked, and subsequently unblocked, last year has moved the 'controversy' section to the top of the article. I'm not only dubious about that move, but about the necessity or appropriateness of most of the section to begin with. Just because it's profusely sourced doesn't mean it belongs--it looks like WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV are concerns, for starters. Looks like there's a history of warring at this article and a related bio, and I wanted to drop you a note before taking this to the BLP noticeboard. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The recent contributions, except for moving the controversy section to the top, seem to be mostly copyediting, so i don't think there's anything particularly problematic there. However, I do agree that the section is WP:UNDUE, and have started a new section on the article's talk page about that. If you have the time, please feel free to start trimming the article. I expect that when you do so, you'll get some blowback from Afropuff76, at which point I can then figure out what administrative actions are required. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've responded at the article talk page, and the fun has begun. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I imagine it would be a good idea for a number of folks to keep an eye on this. Much appreciated, 99.136.255.134 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

New Spain and etc redux
Protection has helped the articles, but the blocked user appears to be editing around the block and following me, blind-reverting my edits. Edward321 (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the person has moved on to purely harassing you and DeCausa, just reverting you on any random article, and her/his IP address is changing, there's nothing we can do other than block each individual IP as they appear (which I've done here). We can, of course, keep the semi-protection on the core articles up, but there's no way to semi-protect every article the two of you edit. Feel free to let me know if it happens again, though since my WP time is going to drastically shrink in the next few weeks, if I don't respond soon, either take it to another admin or even WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Tamil Muslim
Hi could have a look at this discussion Here and add your thoughts. I'm pretty sure the user is working to an agenda and is not being neutral, as have every other user who has debated on the topic Talk:Tamil Muslim/Archive 1. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have commented there; I've also started the very needed cutting and slashing on the article. The majority of the article is still unsourced, and thus should probably be cut much further. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw your edits there. Much of what is being debated is unreferenced too, as you pointed out to him. Hopefully he will comply. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Randomly selected
Well not totally randomly as I'm picking a couple of sensible sounding active admins from an unrelated ANI thread. I asked a question here Wikipedia talk:User pages, as a third party, this doesn't affect me, but I don't think the page gets much admin traffic. If not your area/too busy no worries, will leave this same message at 3 other Talk pages. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Content Dispute and Citations
Okay no problems with me.But the other User claimed to use the citation tag and threatened to remove the content(settled in the talk page) later on using this as a tool.That is unconstructive and vandalism.

Further Blackknight12's edits after your last revision would be the last show of good faith.

Have a glance at the version he reverted to:^.

You can clearly see he placed the citation tag not next to the disputed figure, but rather to the SL Flag Insignia which exposes his heeding for what was agreed upon in the talk page. He had no intention whatsoever to source the article better but only use the tag to dispute the status quo where he had no response to whether he could deny the majority Moors(80% and above) have Tamil as their primary language and have a lot of commonalities with Muslims in Tamil nadu etc.

I was not intending to engage in any sort of edit warring but merely displaced the tag to where the content was actually disputed.It is he who does not respond to any of the points I raise and merely gets into reverting and edit warring with my version.

And now he is taking to attacking all my contribs in other wikis, and I request you to verify them all and you'll find everyone of them are baseless and personal.The other cases as you will see are sheer vandalism and what happened here too^ were of the same motives.--CuCl2 16:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you call good faith edits vandalism one more time I will block you for making a personal attack. You and Blacknight may disagree. Heck, his edits may even be wrong. But they are not vandalism. Again, go read WP:VANDAL. It is obvious that Blacknight is contributing in good faith. And if you remove valid tags again, I will also block you. If you are actually right on the underlying content issue, then you are doing yourself no favors by attacking other editors and removing tags without actually fixing the problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I admit I was in the wrong on misusing the WP:VANDAL terminology.But neither they are of good faith, and hence I reverted them. Thats what I intended to prove. I DID NOT remove the tag as you accuse me of, I merely shifted it to what was related to our dispute. No citation is required that the majority of the Sri lankan Moors use Tamil(Refer to the article carefully please) as their primary language and hence are valid to be counted here. Blackknight is only trying to hijack the whole thing by posing his wild contention over and over like a parrot without being able to respond a single meaningful para against what I have to say. But nobody takes him for edit warring? while I get all the thrashing just because I put the citation where it should have belonged to. Please also check with some of his reverts(against my edits) in articles such as these ones Tamil Buddhism, Tamilakam etc. where he simply reverts my edits when scores of Very Reliable sources exist right there.I do not intend to generalise things but you seem like justifying all that he has done/is doing and blaming me for personal attack when I already clarified with you on that and showing solid proof of the other user's motives behind such edits which clearly did not mean any good faith, displacing the tag to his favor and later threatening in the article's talk page to use it to remove content and erase it out to make it look as per his whims.--CuCl2 16:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine, my last revision was erring.But I did them coz the two tags are already in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppercholride (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

These are the sources, I have listed:
 * http://www.everyculture.com/index.html
 * http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=NEWS&id=1095138094
 * http://www.kashmirherald.com/featuredarticle/indiacensus.html
 * http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02666959208716253

I will now try to amplify why each one is valid to the WP:RS and you please suggest one by one why they aren't according to your opinion.

The first one, is a reliable and widespread publisher(Google them and see) and the academic qualifications of the authors who had presented that particular article seems quite enough to show there has been significant co-ordination and neutral bias in the work.No way you can remove them by WP:SPS as their articles are the combined processed work of several authors altogether.

Now the second and third apparently may not be as widespread as the first two are. But if you probably have read through, you will see the report is a census-based derivative rather than mere personal opinion.The sources cite their content to the 2012 Indian Census and goes on to discuss their one topics but the fact that the numbers mentioned here are cited to the Indian Census makes it very much a suitable reference here, that unless you have another source that would dispute both.

And you yourself please provide me a reason on why the last one was removed.

I cannot come to any conclusions till you say why you keep removing my sources rather than me explain why they shouldn't be there.--CuCl2 13:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's me going through the list:


 * 1) This site contains no information about the publisher, the editors, or the editorial policy. There is no evidence that they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", a requirement listed in WP:RS. They're just some random website run by an advertising company.
 * 2) This is an advocacy site. It is basically the opposite of neutral. They have one goal: to demonstrate that Christianity is waging an attack in India. They cannot be expected to provide neutral, verified information about anything other than their own beliefs. So they would be a reliable source only if there happened to be a Wikipedia article about their site.
 * 3) To quote from their about page, "It is an attempt by few Kashmiri Hindus to unmask the truths behind the mayhem perpetrated in the name of religion in the State of Jammu & Kashmir in India. " Again, an obvious advocacy site. Furthermore, the specific article you linked to reads much more like an opinion piece, not a piece of factual journalism.
 * 4) This one is my mistake--the formatting of your reference threw me, and the fact that all of the others were so obviously not RS, but I really should have checked each one carefully. That does appear to be a scholarly journal, and so could be used. When you site it, though, don't cite it as a website, but as a scholarly journal: give the author, the title, the journal's name, the volume/issue number, and the date of publication.
 * I hope that clears up the issue; there is absolutely no question that 1-3 are definitely not RS. Where they got their information from is irrelevant, nor is there any issue with how widely circulated they are. It has everything to do with whether or not they have a reputation for editorial integrity. What you should be looking for are newspaper articles in good newspapers, scholarly journals, books printed by reputable publishers (especially university/academic presses), and some government sources (though many of those are problematic as they fall under WP:PRIMARY). In speciality fields, there may be other good sources, but you're trying to verify population statistics and other factual data, in which case mainstream, usually academic sources are the way to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Which of the reference did you say was a mistake?I'd like to have it re-added as ASAP. And how do I cite it like the way you suggest me to? I will keep that in mind the kind of sources I should search for though.--CuCl2 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I messed up my numbering. It's the fourth one. I'll go ahead and re-add it and format it. When you edit, if I remember the default settings, above your editing window, there should be a place marked "Cite" on the right. When you select that, a second menu bar will appear under that, and there will be a pull down on the left that says "templates". From there, you can choose the most appropriate one; here, it's "cite journal". This will bring up a pop-up window which has all of the normal fields; after you fill that in, the interface will automatically generate the right template. Alternatively, you can enter the templates manually; this one is at . But I'll do this one so you can see how it looks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Thats a lot of advice. But still we don't seem to agree upon my edits.The two recent links were Government-based census reports.I do not know why of course have you chose to revise them. Fact coz is, in India, Malaysia etc. Tamil is a language rather than an ethnicity.And census reports statewise pertain the same thing more or less.Here ethnicity is Dravidian.

And in the article its widely specified that ''Tamil Muslims are identifiable by a common language and religion. Otherwise, they belong to multiple ethnicities such as Dravidian, Aryan, Oriental, Malay, Semitic, Turkish, Arabic, Moorish, et al..''. So why is it that you keep reverting my sources time and again.

Also I'd like to know what was wrong with the 1st source I listed above.This one I find that very accurate and well compiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuCl2 (talk • contribs)
 * ON the two new cites you added; the first has no editorial information whatsoever. Please identify who compiled the information, and what their credentials are. The second doesn't tell us anything for this article; it merely states the number of Muslim people living in the state of Tamil Nadu. This would include Muslims of all ethnicities and speaking any language; it doesn't even say "Tamil speaking Muslims". For instance, that number includes all internal migrants (all Muslims from other parts of India who have moved to Tamil Nadu at the time of the census). As such, it is not a measurement of "Tamil speaking Muslims" or "Muslims in the Tamil community" or "Muslims of Tamil ethnicity" or "Muslism of Tamil culture". Now, you just asserted above that it's about a common language and religion; however, that's not what the very first sentence of the article says, nor does it accord with how we normally treat the term "Tamil". I asked a question about this a while ago on the talk page, and you didn't answer. Maybe you're right, but if you are, the article needs radical changing, so until you can show that your version is more how the term is usually used in RS, we have to stick with the definition given in the article.
 * On the everyculture cite, your evaluation of it is not what matters. We need to know 1) who are the editors 2) what is their reputation 3) what evidence is there that the information has been well reviewed for factual accuracy? We don't look at a source and say, "Yes, that seems to be true"; instead, we look at who wrote the source, what we know of their methodology, and what their reputation is in the field. That site has absolutely no info whatsoever about it's writers or editors. We must, by default, reject sources for which we cannot determine their reliability. Now, if you can find some evidence that they meet the standards of RS, then we can reconsider, but right now I see no evidence whatsoever. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions. 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) 08:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ezhava oddity
There is an idiosyncratic use of ".." rather than "..." going on. Not enough to cause concern just yet but worth noting. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

MicroStrategy
Hello, Qwyrxian, it's been awhile! I've just posted a request at Paid Editor Help (see here) about a two-part project on behalf of the company MicroStrategy. I've received positive feedback from editors about each proposed draft, but no follow-up. I've also left a message with Silver seren to see if he has any suggestions about finding additional feedback to arrive at consensus. If we do get there, these would probably be done best as histmerges, so I thought I'd give you a shout. Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably be able to at least start looking at them either later today or tomorrow; if I can't I'll update you. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds great, thanks for letting me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair criticism of the MicroStrategy article; I've left some notes and questions in reply, and it would be great to have a little more feedback before I go back and work with it again. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, you appear to be busy and I don't want to ask too much of your time, so FYI I've gone ahead and I've posted to COI/N looking for additional editorial review, and I've mentioned you in my note. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush
Our dear friend seems to be battling almost all alone.

I want to post at Project India or somewhere to see if I can draw some more eyes on the articles he works on. I don't know how he does it. He's been attacked for ages. He faces wikilawyering, dirty tricks, obfuscation, persistent socking, all sorts. I think he's been a real hero in all of this, and deserves praise, but more importantly, support. It seems a bit odd to post at a project saying this, but I worry that he'll crack up and leave. So, I seek your counsel in this matter.

By the way, he's right, right? I mean, sometimes an editor battling mostly alone indicates being wrong, but I don't think so. The thing is, I really get muddleheaded when trying to figure out all this Indian clan stuff etc. But, looking at his history, he's ended up right each time. He's had your agreement on these matters, and I really trust your judgement. Plus, all the work he does that I can actually figure out is plain-as-day correct. So, he's right, right?

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, Sitush is almost always right. The primary reason for this is that Sitush does the research. Way, way more than I do. I simply don't have the desire/means to acquire books and/or most academic sources, and Sitush not only finds the books, but reads them. Cover-to-cover, quite often, and at least whole chapters. This allows Sitush to put information into context, and very very often what we've seen in caste articles is that users pull out a quote, but either don't read or deliberately ignore the surrounding material. So there's been times where someone says, "Author A said 'X is true' so we have to put that into the article." But then when someone actually looks at the source, what A really said is "Previous scholars believed that X is true. However, modern research says it isn't". Or, "The members of Group Z believe X is true." Or, "According to Myth Y, X is true." And since I have never yet found a case where Sitush's interpretation of a source was inadequate, I implicitly trust his research now.
 * The real problem, of course, is that the vast majority of people opposing Sitush already know The TRUTH. They learned it from their families, from their elders, probably in many cases their schools and other respectable institutions. But those TRUTHS are often based on sources that don't meet our standards (for example, the tendency for groups who were praised by the British colonizers to use very old sources that, well, praise them). And I think that the one problem is that the people opposing Sitush may well be right, in the sense that their on-the-ground perspective may well match what they are saying. But, of course, that doesn't help, because we always have to go with what reliable sources say.
 * All of this would probably be okay if a subset of these people didn't, for whatever reason, decide that the way to solve things is to write on and off-wiki attacks, threaten the wrath of the Indian government, or just insult he (or I) directly. I have to presume there is a cultural difference here, given how often it occurs; it's entirely possible that for some reason our caste articles attract the fringes, but the sheer level of animosity, and its frequency, makes me think that for at least some groups, there simply must be different "ground rules" for what is or isn't civil discourse.
 * Sitush and I do disagree at times (even though some editors have claimed that we're actually the same person with two accounts), most often in how we interpret WP:DUE, and, to a lesser extent, WP:BLPCAT. But the reason why that never bothers me is that because I know that in any disagreement, he's coming at the matter from our sources, filtered through our policies/guidelines, every time. He's never, at least never that I've seen, been starting with a presumption of TRUTH.
 * What can we do to help? I think that we should block users far faster than we do for tendentious editing and POV pushing in areas under sanctions. On topics without quite so much sensitivity, it's fine to try to take that extra effort to mentor people, to try to bring them over to the Wiki-Way, but in this case (as in Israeli-Arab issues, Eastern Europe, Macedonia, etc.) I think we should simply explain the rules, give the new users a chance or two to adapt, and then bring out the block-hammer. I know that this is probably a very Admin thing to say--if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like an intransigent POV-pusher who's just draining community resources. And of course my own judgment is certainly clouded from receiving some portion of the flak that he does. But in these cases, I can think of maybe one or two editors who've started off a problem and then "seen the light" and are at least vaguely pleasant to work with now.
 * The other thing, of course, would be more neutral eyes...but why would anyone want to subject themselves to that, you know? Even I limit my involvement, though I haven't had to completely back off yet like I have on at least one totally unrelated topic (the Human flesh search engine scares the beejezus out of me, so I've walked away from topics on it's radar). But I know of other caste-editors who have walked away due to threats to their real lives. If anyone's interested, they don't really have to understand the subject. Anyone who's willing to simply explain, "Yes, WP:V really does apply to you. And so does WP:NPA. Please stop or we'll block you." Taking away that level of pain would at least draw some of the fire. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Plus one" for Q's analysis of Sitush. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the thoughtful reply. So, Sitush is facing lots of editors who feel that on-the-ground facts supersede facts from verified sources. It's tricky because the former is often correct, and history books are often cooked. I guess there are a lot of editors who don't understand that we're sort of just a reporting agency that rewords what media publications say, and publish it.


 * Well, is there a way we can get some others to see this and get some help over to Sitush? He sure does seem to be outnumbered. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, in some cases it's as you describe, while in other cases it's a lot more of an "invented history". It's very common (and not just in India) for groups struggling against an oppressive system to invent a glorious past based on whatever fragmentary "evidence" they can find. So they latch on to one quote, one temple carving, and some very dubious DNA studies. That is, in some cases it's "facts on the ground", but often it's "my side is right, everyone else is wrong, because my side is great!"
 * As for getting help...it's hard for me to think of how to do so without falling afoul of WP:CANVAS. And, keep in mind, anyone who does help Sitush will 1) be called his sockpuppet and 2) potentially face the same abuse. WT:INB won't help, because we've been their before. Maybe some sort of Village Pump post? Not that specifically calls for help for Sitush but that calls for more editors in the general caste areas? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty good point. I guess people cook their own story too. Anyway, that whole thing isn't really intended to the be focus of this post anyhow. It's getting more people who understand enwp policy to be involved in the articles Sitush edits.


 * Yes, the canvas thing. That was what I thought. I'm too chicken to post at Village Pump over this. Hmmm, I'll think more about it. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Bohlin Cywinski Jackson page deletion
Hi Qwryxian, I was directed to the Bohlin Cywinski Jackson page from an architectural class I'm taking and see that you recently deleted it. I was told it was a good resource for the firm's history and their work. It looks like most of the changes made to the page recently were minor and talk comments suggest that these changes were not the ones cited in the original complaint. I have sent a request for undeletion. Can you update me with reasoning for or against its undeletion? Raindelay95 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened was that a user nominated the article for deletion. That process starts a 7 day period in which any user may comment about the article. After that time, an administrator looks at the discussion and determines the consensus, as it matches policy. I was that administrator. Now, usually that either results in deleting or keeping the article, but this was an unusual case, since only one person (the original nominator) commented in the discussion. In that case, I did what is called a soft deletion; that means that I deleted it, but anyone can request that the article be reinstated. I have, in fact, done so. So the article is back. Now, the main complaint about the article was that it appeared to be more of an advertisement than a legitimate Wikipedia article. While I can understand the concerns, I think that perhaps they were overblown, and there is probably a core article that could be saved with editing. Probably the best solution would be to drastically reduce the length of the article, keeping only the info that keeps the company notable and removing any questionable links or poor text. I may tackle that task in the future, but, for now, I've just undeleted. Note that any user could bring the article back to an AFD discussion, in which case we'd have to see what the consensus of users is again. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation and quick reply. I am glad to see that the page is undeleted! Raindelay95 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Krizpo/Puttingfacts
This may be him again (maybe, just maybe; I'm not sure): User: Accepttruth. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are probably correct; I'm about 90% certain its him. Since I'm not 100%, I've started yet another SPI so that a Checkuser can investigate. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Bobrayner is on his tail too diff Buddhism in Denmark diff Buddhism. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest any other likely target pages which I should watchlist? bobrayner (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

‎Coppercholride
Hello, sorry to bother you again, but User:Coppercholride has been reverting and edit warring with constructive edits that I have made. This trend has also been going on with other users, yet he seems adamant that he is right. I suspect there is no use in me trying to talk and discuss with him as he thinks I am on some kind of mission, and that it took a few days to just convince him to find some sources to back up what he was claiming (which he only did after you stepped in) in the previous discussion. He has reverted my constructive edits in the following three articles:
 * Tamil Buddhism
 * Sri Lanka Army
 * Buddhism in Jaffna peninsula

And has also engaged in the edit warring of the following articles with other editors:
 * Bodhidharma
 * Ravana
 * Naga people (Lanka)
 * Early history of Jaffna kingdom

The user is stirring up the neutrality and the validity of these sensitive articles, I'm not sure what would be the next step in preventing this.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, but I'm starting to cut back on my wiki time, and I just won't have time to get involved in something so complicated. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. Hope you can be back soon.--Blackknight12 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

go thru facts
i suggest u 1stly go thru facts before making comments, edits i made were attached with referances taken from other pages on wiki and which were highly neautral and it wasnt me who started edit war it was other user zeewiki something who started it claiming i made far too many edits my question is did tht person go thru those edits b4 reverting it? and next which god did i insult? as a matter of fact which i even pointed out old updates had great cricketer Sachin Tendulkar face hidden and showing his back which is insulting to cricketing gods" " and here cricketing god is Sachin Tendulkar" " him self, nextly to point out calling other editors pathetic example are here with so called edit war how can tht perticular user zeewiki something revert my edits which had referances attached from neutral sources with out going thru it? and if u are really concerned by knowledge then i expect an answer to this questions and so i have added few referances for you to go thru about cricketing gods and i suggest since you are from japan or whereever please thru your facts b4 commenting Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is that Featured articles have gone through an extremely extensive (many many months) review process, involving lots of discussion and consensus-building. As such, editors are given more allowance to revert significant changes, and ask that they be discussed on the article talk page first. This is not to say that the article can't be changed, but that it's a rare case where we should usually have discussion first, especially for major stylistic changes. But no matter what article it is, if you make a big change, and someone reverts it, what you should usually do is go to the article's talk page and start a discussion on the matter; doing anything else means that you are starting an edit war.
 * Now, as for that discussion; first, I recommend just not using terms like "cricketing gods", because it looks like you're making a religious insult. But even if we ignore that one, you called other editors "crazy" and a "bunch of highhanded cyber zombies". That is never acceptable. You are directly and aggressively insulting other editors, and that is forbidden by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Then, after I'd already warned you, you did it again. If you use such language even once more, I will block you.
 * Finally, I think you need to fundamentally change your approach, especially to editing articles that have a lot of regular editors. Just because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not mean that whatever you want must automatically be added to the article. There are legitimate reasons that people disagree, and you have to be willing to discuss when disagreements happen. Sometimes some of your changes will be made, sometimes they will not. That's how a collaborative environment works. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * may i suggest you editing any topic which have referances attached to it multiple time is called as highhandedness and since wiki is democratic i suggest to please mention a reason b4 reverting and even now i am suggesting you to go thru the edits which i made in page named as India and if you find anything giving false info regarding anything then i am ready accept it as mistake.And I consider it was a highhandedness of few people who wants to run wiki if they remove edits which are constructive and informative with NEUTRAL referances. Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already explained above. As an FA, deference is given to the current version of the article. And, as I also said, reverting any massive change (that isn't made because the page was violating policies) is also acceptable, and definitely not high-handed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to please go thru article India and check edits which i made if any thing is uninformative or abusive then please let me know it would be helpful as i am an indian i want my nations image of web portal to be colourful and true to fact please suggestSushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will not be getting involved in the content dispute itself; if I were to do that, I could no longer act administratively with respect to the dispute/page. Please continue discussion on the talk page; if you need to get others involved, we have Dispute resolution processes that you can use. One thing, though—I recommend that you read the featured article criteria, noting that media is specifically mentioned there. It could be argued that adding more than one or two more pictures could put the article's featured article status at risk. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * since u r admin u can suggest me better, according to info u gave 1 image per section thats what i did over there and povided statistical detail on population and faith, and so as being discussed created a section for infra and trasport which all are under rules and guidelines, so now i request u to point out mistake did by me for mass reverting of edits with neutral referances. thank you Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read what I told you, because I don't enjoy repeating myself. Massive changes to Featured article should almost always be reverted. Now your job is to get a consensus for your suggested changes on the talk page. And you must do so civilly. Finally, I didn't say "1 per section"--I said 1 or 2 more images. That means, I would argue that that article should not have more than 1 or two more images total; any more than that and it risks FA status. Articles on Wikipedia should not have one image per section. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I was just wondering if you could take a look on the administrator's edit warring page. I submitted one yesterday with regard to an IP account and a more experienced user. Basically they went back and forth reverting over 10 times, in disregard to the 3RR. I would be interested to see what you think. Thanks Spc 21 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Greens
Hi,

I think a sock is active a again recreating Battle of the Greens with the same old data. Cossde (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to be verified by reliable sources. Of course, the question is, do those sources rise past WP:ROUTINE? I don't know. At this point, I think you would need to open an AfD if you think it should be "permanently" merged; that's the only way to ensure a solid result that can be administratively enforced. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Vijay
Hi, there is a proposal made for merging the above list with it's parent article. It's been over a month since the discussion started and we are waiting for consensus. Can you close the topic? &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  13:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've answered there. You don't actually need an admin to close discussions like that unless it's a contentious discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm not watchlisting those, so if there's some problem, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I'm involved in the discussion I can't close. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  12:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in...
... here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @*((*#&@# !!!! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Chhokar
Is Chhokar at the long-term semi-protection stage? Practically every anon is adding poor content, it has gone on for ages in a slow-burn sort of way, and yet the IP ranges seem to be vast. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
smt cha hal 04:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Anushka Shetty
Hi Q, The user is contuining to add unsourced to the biographical article and also not trying to be neutral while writing. Could you look to the contributions before you take actions. Thanks. Tolly 4  bolly  09:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user indefinitely, but noted that she/he can be unblock if she/he will commit to stop adding unsourced BLP info. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Peterzor
Hello, I notice you recently banned Peterzor for disruptive editing. Well, straight after his ban he did this: multiple self-reverts seemingly to hid a major revert (part of a slow edit war). Now, I'm not complaining about the edit war as such :) It's the 6 subsequent edits that annoy me. Firstly, he didn't give edit summaries (well, there was one misleading, nonsensical one describing the addition of an indefinite article) and secondly, the changes are repeated edits and self-reverts seemly, I presume, intended to hide the major revert earlier. If that is so, then he is surely being disruptive - not great following a ban.

I just thought since you were involved in the previous, recent ban you should know and might want to act on it. Regards, Malick78 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's not clear enough evidence that he was being intentionally deceptive, and if he was, it wasn't a really useful tactic, since both you and everyone else looking at the article can see what actually happened in the history. I see that you've already warned him, and he hasn't edited since, so let's see what else happens. You can notify me if things get bad again, but if really fast action needs to happen, take it to ANI as I'll be on WP quite a bit less for the upcoming future. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. Thanks! Malick78 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

New Spain & etc again
Santos30 is back with yet another IP. Can the articles be semi-protected for a longer period? Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The Indic scripts
Per the discussion at Project India, I preserved Anil 666's additions by just wrapping or moving them to the native_name field. I saw that you removed one after I'd finished. If you want to remove them, please do. If you really want, let me know and I will go in and remove them all. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Times_Of_India edit
Hi Qwyrxian,

Hope you are doing a good work. Here are some other sources of evidence that Times_Of_India is a congress support the changes

http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/congress-whore-times-of-india/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/Times-Of-India-Congresss-Newspaper-Hit-like-if-you-agree/237757483008745 http://scrutinybykhimaanshu.blogspot.in/2011/10/ah.html http://superblog.crazyengineers.com/2011/06/28/toi-is-media-puppet-controlled-by-congress/ http://knowing-islamic-doctrines.blogspot.in/2011/03/times-of-india-and-congressi-are-miffed.html

Because you are not from India, you might not know the hatred w.r.t to this news paper. They are sold to Congress Government. Please add back my criticism there.

I'm sure wikipedia is a source of information for people. These secret pacts have to be exposed.

Thank You Sai Krishna


 * All of those are blogs or Facebook. Thus, by definition, none of them are reliable sources. You will need to find information in high quality newspapers, books by reputable publishers, media journals, etc. Otherwise, the info cannot be included. Let me know if you have further questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hostile editor
Could you please take a look at the unsourced edits made by User:Wasifwasif at Abdul Nazer Mahdani. I have tried to reach out to him and use the talkpage to settle matters but he is particularly hostile towards me and has made three new unsourced edits on that page. Thanks. --Neelkamala (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edits and left comments on the user's talk page; we'll have to see how things continue. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. :) --Neelkamala (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. 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) 09:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Maria Menounos
In most articles there isn't usually a reference attached to DOB. Are there any sources that suggest it could be anything other than that date? Spiderone 11:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is very strict on this; if you ever see an unsourced DoB, you should remove it immediately--it's not something that can even stay in with a "citation needed" tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Trinity College, Kandy alumni
Hi,

I think List of Trinity College, Kandy alumni needs a clean up specially regrading the refs.Cossde (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are 100% correct. Unfortunately, I'm quite unlikely to have time to do so in the near future. Feel free to go at it with a hatchet; WP:NLIST is very clear: they need verification of 1) alumni status and 2) importance. Having a WP article automatically hits #2, though a good ref could be enough (though not an SPS or similar), and #1 can be verified in either the list article or in the person's WP article if they have one. Everyone who doesn't have those should be removed. If you get any resistance, tell me and I'll bring the policy clarifications. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian Revenue Service, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Economic Times (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) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

indef block for topic?
I don't know how I ended up on this chain of events, but it seems there is an indef block on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Target_for_Today when the ANI consensus was for a topic block. Was there another discussion thread where the indef all-topic ban was discussed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not read the consensus that way, or at least, not entirely. The consensus, to me, was that the editor needed to stop making new categories and new sub-stub articles. The editor was strongly exhorted to discuss the creation of categories, since such a large number of them were being CfD'd, and merged at best. This creates an extremely large amount of pretty much unneeded work from other editors. Then, in the middle of the discussion, TfT did log on, spent hours making more of a mess of the categories, added a completely non-communicative response to the ANI thread, and then did even more category work. In other words, dozens of people told him to stop, and he didn't stop. Instituting a topic ban wouldn't have done anything--there is no technical way to implement a topic ban. Instead, we (the community) tell the editor "you can't do this anymore," and then if the person violates that topic ban, we enforce it with site-wide blocks. But here, there was obviously no point in spending an extra few days with that process, since TfT had already demonstrated multiple times that he was unable or unwilling to listen to community consensus. As such, even if we had instituted a topic ban, the very next time he logged on and messed around with categories, we would have had to block him anyway.
 * Note, also, that an indefinite block is not an infinite block, as is explained on the ANI thread and in the block notice. If TfT posts a coherent unblock request, explaining that he has heard the community's concerns and is willing to stop new category creation, then I myself would probably be willing to unblock immediately. As Elen of the Roads said, the encyclopedia to a large degree runs on communication, and if one editor is both unwilling/unable to communicate and hellbent on doing things her/his own way, the only way we can make it stop is to block them until they are willing to communicate. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)