User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 5

Boundary
This is an excellent edit summary: I do grasp the reasons to agree with the way you frame the options. At the same time, I can't settle on how to explain the reasons you've got it wrong, but that is quite beside the point. These clauses are clear, succinct and compelling. Please consider incorporating these words in the RfC you are drafting. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * diff 10:21, 12 November 2010 Qwyrxian (25,659 bytes) (Boundary is not the right word here--the issue is who owns the islands: determination of the ownership of the islands comes first; that one book used the term does not override the majority of sources pointing to the islands as the defining issue)
 * The RfC will only deal with the issue of what the name will be. RfC's are generally supposed to be about one and only one issue.  And the boundary vs. island ownership is unlikely to need to be an RfC.  Your desire to use "boundary" is, if I understand correctly, identical to those who state the name of the article "should" be Diaoyu--because that's the "right" name.  But none of the sources we refer to, except for the scholarly source you sight, refer to this as a dispute about boundaries--rather, it's a dispute about who owns some islands.  Of course, ownership of those islands will shape the sea zone boundaries, and obviously that's an important issue, but when the two sides argue, they're not saying "the boundary should be here, at this line," they're saying "Senkaku belongs to us because of historical reasons x, y, and z."  So I'm pretty sure we can get consensus on have the issue marked as a territory dispute, without needing an RfC. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

HUS abd
I blocked as a sock account of Md iet. Notice the unusual use of commas: not only does he express support for a lost cause as his first edit, he matches Md iet's punctuation errors and did so during a period where Md iet stopped editing in response to a warning that he was risking editing restrictions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had assumed HUS abd was either a sock or a meatpuppet, as the odds were quite low that a random new user with a similarly patterned username would begin their editing here on an RfC to support a cause no one else was supporting.  I didn't look at the actual linguistic patterns to see if socking was more likely.  Next time I'll look for those types of details. Thanks for the help!  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea of Japan naming dispute
The article Sea of Japan naming dispute you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for things which need to be addressed. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks--I will definitely work to improve the article ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My use of BRD in Senkaku Island discussions
This is not intended to get you involved in my little spat with another user.

As you already know, I've recently enforced a WP:BRD on another user's edits. Although I've allowed the discussion to derail to be something somewhat less civil, I believe my justification of using the BRD procedure is appropriate. I am aware that you've expressed some initial disagreements to using BRD but did not follow up on the issue as the discussion progressed. Since this may not be the last time this guideline will pop up for this page, I would like to know, in your opinion, what circumstances would warrant a BRD. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, first, when does BRD work. As I read that essay, BRD happens when someone makes a new, bold change to an article, in an attempt to move the article past a sticking point.  After that, someone else who objects to the changes reverts.  Then, discussion ensues on the talk page.  Part of the point behind BRD is to find the so-called "Most Interested Person".  However, and maybe this was my fault, but I read your invocation of BRD as saying that it was automatically required that all possible changes (outside, of course, anti-vandalism and copy-editing) required prior discussion on the talk page. In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what BRD says.  Furthermore, once consensus forms (as John Smith thought it had in the case in question), BRD no longer "applies".  Now, JS may have been wrong about a consensus forming--that's less clear to me.  But if it had, JS's change would no longer have really been the "bold change" described in the essay--it would simple have been someone translating talk page consensus (and, again, this means agreement informed by policy, not just vote counting) into article editing.  Furthermore, we don't invoke BRD simply on principle--that is, we shouldn't revert one change simply because another had been reverted (as you, in fact, said you had done).  Rather, we invoke it because we actually believe the edit is wrong and wouldn't have consensus if it had been talked out first.
 * Thus, I don't think it was inherently a problem that you reverted. It was that you seemed to be attempting to apply BRD where it didn't apply, and further that you were using it as justification in and of itself for the revert.   Putting BRD in an edit summary is a good short-hand way of saying "Hey, that doesn't seem right to me, let's talk this out."  It isn't an argument on a talk page, though, for saying why something shouldn't be in the article.  Note that JS had already, in fact, begun the discussion on the talk page.  So I think it would have been fine for you to revert, but you shouldn't have put up a talk page response on the edit summary invoking an essay, using "incivil civility", accusing him of POV-pushing, and basically not addressing the issue JS had already mentioned.  Instead, if you had just used your the same first two sentences, "I'd advise you to discuss the changes you are about to make in this talk page before making them. I don't believe the naming and name-ordering discussions resulted in an agreement that is consistent to the nature of your recent changes."  You could then have added--"can you please explain where you saw that consensus arise?"  In other words, it's that same old saw of focusing on the edits, rather than the editors, and invoking policy as a way to move forward, rather than just a tool for stopping progress.  Does that distinction seem clear?
 * Finally, as you said, I have "patience and generosity," which I take as a compliment. I think that quality is more important the more contentious the article is.  I think it's the only way to have any hope on achieving any sort of successful article.  Otherwise, we're really just engaging in a game of brinkmanship, where each side escalates their movements (edits, reverts, comments, language, incivility, etc.), until someone crosses a line that brings down Serious Consequences.  At best, that ends up with a protected article like the dispute page.  At worst, some editors start getting hit with blocks, and not necessarily those editors who "deserved" it "most".  Yes, we need to keep removing the "undesirable elements" (i.e., the people who post soapboxing rants on the talk page, or the editor who insists on changing the article because it needs to be "true"); but for those of us willing to hang around such a difficult atmosphere, on an article that is not only contentious but actually has real-world consequences...I think we owe each other, if not respect, at least, civility.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the long-winded response.


 * I agree that it is BRD is not "automatically required that all possible changes (outside, of course, anti-vandalism and copy-editing) required prior discussion on the talk page". However, that's not the justification I used. In fact, what I've said was basically "hey, that doesn't seem right to me, let's talk this out.", though obviously in a less polite manner. That part was elaborated in later parts of the thread, which I don't expect you to read or have read due to the density of irrelevant arguments.
 * To clarify on the chronology of events, the user in question did not start his talk page discussion on 23:40, 10 November 2010 until I've asked him to on 22:53, 10 November 2010.
 * My impression of the previous discussions on the relevant issues is that they are informal and are either unresolved or decided in a way that was contradictory to what the said user wanted. I am not sure if that's also ground for BRD, but I am quite confident his edits violate at least one agreement. If BRD is somehow not the right policy to cite, then what policy should I have cited instead?


 * Lastly, I do believe the editor in question is not really interested in WP:NPOV (much like Phoenix7777). While I don't have issues with being contradicted, I quite dislike people doing so with bad or non-existent reasoning. I also don't have a high opinion for broken recorder and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics. In the case of this user, he did all of the above regularly throughout the history of the talk page (which I noticed as I went through the archives for drafting the RfC). Though I agree with you that showing him a bit more respect is a more prudent measure, I doubt it will render him any more cooperative. However, I will try to refrain from poking at self-given status as a reputable Wikipedia editor, since it's getting old anyway. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Doing the RfC for Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands naming
How do you want to have this RfC submitted? A table like this? If so, we need to decide on a set of topics. Choosing the arguments should be easy, since it'd be just a matter of copying and pasting from our existing discussions. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding from looking at other RfCs is that we shouldn't include any arguments for/against at all.  Since whatever we write in the first paragraph will be transcluded on to the main RfC page, we want it to be brief and neutral; we can then point people to the arguments above (we can move any relevant ones out of the archive if we want temporarily).  We could say something to the effect that the reason we're considering the move is that some editors believe the current name does not adequately match what the majority of English sources call the islands; or say that some editors are believe the current name doesn't reflect WP's various policies on article names for geographic places with more than one local name.  Or something else brief like that.  We could list all of the possible names, although that may not be necessary.  Then, as others join the discussion, we can all respond in more conversation.  However, later today I'll look at other RfC's and make sure my memory matches current usual practice.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you want the search results be presented then? Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't. Take a look at other RfC's--I just read through Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies.  Note how those RfC's present very little, if any, of the arguments, data, or other background for the dispute.  The idea is that someone new coming in response to the RfC should read through what has been written already and/or do their own research.  The whole goal of the RfC is just to bring more people to the page to essentially join the conversation we're already having.  We actually want them to respond based on everything that's been said so far, not just a summary.  Later, if/when we do the WP:RM, then we can include whatever final argument we agree upon.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I haven't forgotten about this. I will write up my part of the RfC within the next few days. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've written an early draft. You can find it on my user page. It is far from complete and contains only a brief overview of what's been done/discussed in the past. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you might imagine, I prefer my version better. I personally think we shouldn't have any of the reasons you included.  I know yours is a rough draft, and you may not have intended it this way, but your current draft is very strongly weighted to the idea of changing the name.  You present more arguments for the change, your language choice denigrates the reasons for keeping it as is, you create straw man arguments in favor of keeping the current name, etc.  This is why I recommend not including any of the arguments at all.  Otherwise, I need to come over to your draft and add in all of the arguments why I think the name is correct as is.  And then suddenly your RfC is going to be several screen-pages long, which means that probably no one will even read it.  Furthermore, it doesn't do what we really want, which is get new opinions on the issue.  It would be great if some new eyes could come to the discussion and point out something we hadn't thought of so far, that might help us move towards consensus.  Sure, that means they might duplicate arguments already raised somewhere in the archives, but that's a small price to pay, I think.  In any event, once people do come with discussions of the issue, then we can each raise points as appropriate in response to their statements/questions.  Now, one thing that might need to be added to mine is more links to past discussions, just for ease of navigation.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The top part is my part of the RfC. The bottom part with the sub-headings will go into my own Comment for the RfC. I believe my overview of what transpired in the past is good enough. What do you think? Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made some minor comment on your draft. One question regarding your discussion. Should the naming be independent of whether it is a "change" or not? i.e. one should also assume a blank page, as if we were creating a new wiki-page. IMHO the issue is not about to change or not to change (as this is technically trivial). It is indeed what the name should be. Maybe that is how we should present it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by San9663 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC) San9663 (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My feeling was not to say change (that's more like a Requested Move). I figure it is more neutral to ask for the "correct" name, rather than to say "is this current name right or should we change it."  The latter gives undue strength to Senkaku.  I think my draft is phrased that way; is there some part where I portrayed it like a move? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Bactrian camel & dromedary
Hi, I see you reverted my edit; I think I'm right though since I read it in a book (see reference). I altered the Dromedary article too. I guess that perhaps meat is used of camels, but I don't think milk is, or if it is, atleast in a much lesser degree and perhaps only in special preperations (rather than straight up)

Also, is it possible to redirect camel to Bactrian camel, it would simplify matters allot. 91.182.251.170 (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend discussing the issue on the talk page. The article does contain sources (I believe, I'd have to recheck), so you can't take your one reference as trumping those others. I apologize that I don't have time to look into the issue right now, but check on the talk page first, and, if no one responds, try making the edits again. 13:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) And the last point (redirect) would absolutely be wrong. The main article should always be the most commonly used English name.  If they are the same, the redirect should go the other way. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Fadi Haddad
I was aware that I had gone beyond the three revert rule, and meant to stop editing the page and bring it to attention at administrators' noticeboard. You were faster; thanks. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I was trying to find some biography of the person online, as the page had listed three different years of birth in the past (though I suspect that this one is correct and the other two were vandalism). I wasn't able to find anything. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

GAN Reviews for Sea of Japan naming dispute
It's been reviewed now (twice), and has been placed on hold. Please go and check up on it.

By the way, shameless plug below:

Cheers, Sven Manguard  Talk  01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, well I didn't notice that other notice right above this notice. He eh, my bad. Sven Manguard Talk  02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review; I'll start working on the improvements. I'll take a look at the Wikiproject--I'm not a member of any at the moment, as my interests tend to be diffuse, but I do seem to being drawn more and more into East Asian pages, especially those pesky border/boundary/ownership disputes... Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that you joined on. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I hope to do so again in the future. If you ever are looking for something to do, drop me a message. I'm a much better coordinator than I am a content author, and I did most of the tagging for the project, so I think I have a pretty good idea as to what is out there in need of someone with your skills. Good luck with the GAN! Sven Manguard  Talk  04:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan GAN
I'm working on the images now. I found the source of the main image. It's a modification of a file from commons (File:Topographic_Map_of_Japan.png at ) I'll do the licencing on it now. As for the other one, I'm having issues tracking the source down. TinEye isn't helping (it's an image searcher. See the reuslt page here (result page expires in 72 hours.) Cheers, Sven Manguard  Talk  02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, we're working on this simultaneously. I found a source for Gando.jpg--it's from the mid 18th century, so I switched to PD-old.  Let me know if that's not correct--I don't work much with images.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Intent
Greetings. This is to serve as a formal notice of intent for the pursuant, one Sven Manguard, to undertake the following actions towards you, Qwyrxian. The actions will be taken in such a time as dictated by the pursuant getting off his lazy bum and making the star. You have the right to remind him of this one (1) week from the posting of this message. You may exercise this right via trouting if you so choose.
 * 1) Create a WikiProject East Asia barnstar.
 * 2) To award you with said barnstar.

Cheers, Sven Manguard  Talk  06:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Don't worry to much about the graphics and all--we all have limited time to spend on WP.   Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tunisia-Libya maritime boundary dispute
It is not obvious that you would have any interest in a maritime boundary dispute between two North African nations here; but some aspects may have relevance in East Asian contexts. For example, please consider three short excerpts from S. P. Jagota's Maritime Boundary:
 * A. "... the Court emphasized that 'the notion of historic rights or waters ... are governed by distinct legal regimes in customary international law
 * "... based on acquisition and occupation"
 * "... based on the existence of rights ipso facto and ab initio." -- see Jagota, S. P.

In other words,
 * B. The study of treaties on maritime boundaries "... is of importance from many angles; their provisions will be a source of general or particular international law binding on the parties to those treaties; their provisions may be evidence of existing customary law, or may crystallise the emerging custom on the point, or may be the source of development of custom .... " -- see Jagota, S. P.  The development of "customary law" may affect nations other than Tunisia and Libya.

However,
 * C. "On the validity and scope of historic rights claimed by Tunisia and their opposition to Libya, the Court said that this question will be unnecessary if ... [decision-making], 'independently of the existence of these rights, is such that the delimitation line will undoubtedly leave Tunisia in the full and undisturbed exercise of these rights -- whatever they may be -- over the area claimed to be subject to them, so far as opposable to Libya' ... [and] the Court did not examine the question of historic rights further." -- see Jagota, S. P.

Perhaps there is potential usefulness in the way this topic is parsed --Tenmei (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: GA
It's not a problem. Post on my page if ever you need any help whatsoever. It was a good article from the get-go, but it just had a few kinks to iron out. Glad to have passed it. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A new toy to play with
I found this wonderful little box during one of my tagging sprees, and thought you might want to have it. Considering the wonderful work you do, I figured that this might pique your interest. Who would have thought that there would be so many of them. Anyways, this isn't a request for you to do anything, but rather one of those interesting things I find from time to time and pass along other people's way. If you're looking for something on a lighter note, there's always my personal collection of lighter notes. Well, see you around. Cheers, Sven Manguard  <b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  05:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Senkaku RfC
Hi. I didn't see a response to one of my comments on the talk page. Are you going to accept that the RfC can deal with more than one issue at the same time, or will I have to make my own one? I have seen a number of RfCs that addressed multiple points - they didn't fail to get interest. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This one issue is so very very contentious that I would really like to handle just the one issue, especially since your issue (the individual island names) is at least in part dependent on the main name. I would really hate for the RfC to run, be very complicated, and have the side that "loses" (doesn't get it's preferred POV) use the confusion as an argument for re-raising the issue.  Could you perhaps at least wait til the main name RfC is running for a week or so to start another RfC on the picture captions and individual island name ordering?  I'm almost certainly going live with the RfC tomorrow morning my time (so, in 11-14 hours or so).  Obviously I can't compel anything, and you are right, in that an RfC can have more than one issue, but I still believe a single issue is better.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend not touching any of the sub-issues until the RfC is over. It is as if the previous discussions were not chaotic enough already and they were only dealing with 1 issue. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you could've given me and others a notice before submitting the RfC request. I've been busy IRL and have not been able to get back to my draft yet. But since you've already gone ahead with the post, I guess I'd have to post all that I have. Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delicate balancing--we don't want to discuss the pre-discussions forever, and clearly JS is concerned about other issues as well, which can't be resolved until the RfC is ready and running. As a side note, you should not be posting a summary of your opinions to the RfC.  The whole point is we're requesting comments from outside people--we already know what you think.  Respond appropriately to what people say (you'll see a response I made to one commenter there); hold your opinion until later, or bring up specific points in response to what other say.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe a summary is necessary, since it'd be unproductive for people to come up with de novo discussions on points that have been discussed and analyzed to the death. Personally, I'd like to simply put all the points, arguments, and ideas on the table and debate on that basis. The summary I've provided should be neutral and representative enough to provide a start for commentators who are interested in diving into the references I've cited. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being strong, but don't even consider posting your points as a summary. That summary is extremely biased and in favor of changing the name.  You selectively pick out points against Senkaku, you pull up already defeated straw man arguments in favor of Senkaku, and you don't point out where arguments against changing have been brought up.  Again, maybe you haven't done this before, but I don't think you understand what an RfC is.  We don't want people coming in, taking a quick read, and giving an opinion.  We want well-informed opinions, or none at all.  This isn't a vote.  This is a chance to bring people who haven't already been involved into the discussions.  In fact, ideally, we want some of the people to stick around and continue in a discussion.
 * If you post that as a summary, I will make it clear that you are posting a highly biased, POV perspective. I don't know if you're just too close to see it, but it's extremely obvious that your summary is not a neutral summary, and it is improper to represent it as such.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how that summary is 'biased'. But of course, in the trivial case, one can claim any piece of writing to be biased.
 * If you wanted this to be a discussion instead of a vote, then you probably want to write in the thread that it is not a motion to call for a vote until a fair bit of debate has been done for each of the topics concerned. For now, what I see is that we already have a number of people voting without any of us actually presenting any updated arguments on the topic (which should be an important part of this RfC). Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well? Is that all you are putting into the RfC? I apologize for sounding a bit disappointed, but I was expecting a wee-bit more content and discussion in the RfC. Since all the things I wrote appear to be largely ignored (which is kind of expected anyway...), I'd probably re-submit this as an ANI by myself. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think you understand what an RfC is--or maybe, I don't. For me, an RfC is specifically designed to, for a short while, to have the normally disputing involved voices calm down a bit and let others talk.  Then we, as insiders, can respond to individual comments or questions.  An RfC is not mediation, where the point is for each side to present a large volume of evidence and work out their problems together.  That's why I'm saying mediation is the way to go if we don't get more helpful external voices.  So for me, you're the one whose doing something wrong in the RfC, not myself.  Again, it is certainly possibly that I'm misinterpreting in theory or practice how a Request for Comment is supposed to work.  Question on your last sentence--you said you'd "probably resubmit this as an ANI by myself"--what do you mean? ANI usually refers to WP:ANI, the noticeboard for administrators to handle behavioral incidents.  They don't/aren't supposed to muddle into content disputes like this one.  Maybe you meant mediation? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that ANI is also used for dispute resolution. If that's incorrect, then I suppose mediation is the only way to go.
 * I agree that RfC is not mediation and not necessarily the place to reach a discussion. While a minimal amount of interference of our opinion to other people's POV on the matter is desired, but this is accompanied by an increased risk of derailment due to the requirement of de novo comprehension of a matter whose history spans many pages of text. I hope you understand my concern. Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I do certainly understand your concern. My hope on the RfC was not that we would get many different thoroughly researched opinions on the matter, but that we would get one or two people who took a new interest and joined us for longer discussions, or that perhaps someone had an insight that we hand't had before--or, heck, even a reference we hadn't seen. And, as an avid watcher for the "drama boards" like ANI, I guarantee that if we take a content dispute their, they'll close up the discussion very quickly and tell us to go to WP:Dispute resolution. Which, in fact, is the other reason we "had to" do an RfC. In order to get accepted for mediation, usually we have to show that we've made a good faith effort to resolve the problem on our own, which an RfC does. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. That's fair enough. Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian spelling and date format
Just because Canada is neighbours with the US, it doesn't mean we do things the same!! The Federal and Provincial gov't use dd/mm/yy and I grew up dd, mm, yy. If you're speaking about a Canadian, you SHOULD respect our culture and use Canadian spelling and date format. It's not cool to automatically assume that just because you're American or that we are neighbours with Americans, that you can run rule we do things American. Not cool to dictate to a country's culture. We are not strongly related to the US...instead, we're strong related to the UK!!!

You're the one who's not understanding. In Canada, both formats are used. I'm not at all assuming that Canada should follow American format. I'm saying that you, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, must follow Wikipedia policies. One of those policies (WP:MOSDATE) states that articles related to Canada can use either format, and that you need talk page consensus to switch from one to the other. If you can show on that talk page that the consensus of involved editors is to switch the format, then you may do so. Again, I'm only trying to make sure policy is followed here. Personally, I prefer the Day-Month-Year format--it makes much more sense to me. But unilaterally making these changes just leads to pointless edit warring. Notice that I've set up a space for a conversation on the talk page. Please add your comments there. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As a Canadian, I have seen both types being used. I'd also like to point out that Canada is much more influenced by the U.S. than the U.K. While there are still notable differences between American and Canadian culture (that is, if there is one to speak of), it's not as contrasting as one would imagine. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends in Canada, as there two types of Canadians - Americanised Canadian and a British Canadian - I am from Victoria and I am British Canadian - I see more influence from the UK than I do America - the differences between Victoria and Seattle or any other American city is QUITE notable...Bobthefish2 you must live on the American border/city for you to say that or from Ontario...so speak for your region!!! SAMK71 (talk)

Value added tax free imports from the Channel Islands
Hi Qwyrxian. You helped get the above page on the straight and narrow. We have a POV user trying to mess the page up by removing facts he may find personally inconvenient. Your help appreciated. Thanks - bigbrothersback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrothersback (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made comments on the article's talk page, along with some initial edits to the article page as well. I've also invited the "new" editor to join us on the talk page as well.  Let's continue the discussion over there.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead sections
It's fine (and arguably necessary) to include ethnicity in the body of the article. The rough consensus seems to be that including it in the lead (and generally the first sentence of the lead, at that) unnecessarily highlights what is usually an accident of birth. It's worst for Americans, because we are mongrels. A year ago, the lead sentence for my hypothetical article would have read "Kevin Wayne Williams, a Japanese-born American of Dutch, German, Welsh and Irish ancestry residing in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,..." Clearly a distraction, and not serving the purpose of summarizing the article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the details. It still seems to me that Furtado meets the exception carved out by BLP, in that her ethnic heritage, which specifically effected both her childhood and her linguistic abilities, meets the necessary exception, and that nothing in WP:BLP distinguishes between body and lead.  But I have no interest in re-reading and re-debating all that info in the talk page archives, so I'm happy to trust that discussions arrived at an acceptable consensus.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tenmei's addition in Senkaku naming RfC
It appears Tenmei copied and pasted one of his magnificent tables from the past to the RfC. Personally, I don't think it fits at all to the discussion and is quite redundant. The table's framing of question, as I've commented in a previous discussion, was geared towards supporting a specific conclusion. Since his tables have a tendency of derailing or complicating a discussion (which is a view you may or may not sure), but I have a this temptation to delete it. However, I am not sure if it is something appropriate to do. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't allowed to delete it. It doesn't matter what conclusion it purports to draw or actually does draw--it's a legitimate user's legitimate comment on a subject.  The worst you could argue is that it's tendentious, which is possibly something that could be brought up at WP:WQA.  However, I personally don't think it rises to that level, primarily because xe doesn't really try to compel the rest of us to respond, and, more importantly, isn't simultaneously editing the article based upon xyr conclusions in these digressions.
 * Really, a much better solution is to do what I'm going to do right now: I'm going to respond to the comment you made above the table, and just ignore his response. I actually understand what this particular table is supposed to do, but I just don't have anything particularly useful to say about it, so I'll move on to an issue that actually matters (which, actually, will be the point the table  is supposed to be making, just in prose rather than "graphical" form.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. Now, that I thought about it a bit more, it does seem I was trying to censor, which isn't appropriate. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony Silva Reference Section "need citations"
Hi Qwyrxian,

I would like to have the "need citation" notes removed from Mr. Silva's references. The citations are all correct. In fact, his book "Monograph of Macaws and Conures" even has the ISBN publisher number in the section immediately above the referenced section. It is correct and so that citation should be removed.

In the United states, legal citations are cited exactly as Mr. Silva has given them. Anyone can go to the U.S. court which he also referenced, and ask the court clerk to look up documents (pleadings, complaints, transcripts etc) with the legal case number. The legal citations/case number that he provided are all correct. Therefore, no further citations are needed.

Please email me if you need further information.

I want to remove the "citations needed" because they are already on the page in proper form.

Thank you,

Psittazen (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed you address as you generally shouldn't put that on Wikipedia. As for the citations, I'm going to put a comment on the article's talk page so that everyone editing can see it. Thanks for the clarification. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

List of largest empires
Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to respond yesterday. Thanks for your request, but I intentionally no longer edit that article. I sincerely believe that the article is and will always be WP:OR. I bow to the consensus at the 5th deletion discussion and will not be disruptive, but I do not consider any effort invested on that article worth my time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request to Nick Clegg
Hi, thanks for considering my request for a wikilink and correction on Talk:Nick Clegg. Sorry if I was not clear: I have already created the article here: Vote for Students pledge so could you reconsider please? --Hermajesty21 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that someone else has already added it, and I agree with that addition. I actually changed it so that it uses the full name rather than a piped link to the word "pledge" (I felt it didn't stand out clearly).  If the Vote for Students pledge page is merged, be sure to have that link updated so that it points to the right section of the target page. 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Anita Bryant update
We talked a bit on the Anita Bryant talk page about the right phrasing of the slogan from the orange juice commercials. This video suggests that the correct slogan at some point was "A day without..." instead of "Breakfast without...", so her page should probably reflect both slogans. FWIW, which is not much, google thinks there are about twice as many hits for her name plus "a day without" versus "breakfast without". Poker dmorr (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian English
Hello... FYI, I'm sure this isn't what you intended at Canadian English. However, when you reverted my tweaks with the comment "You're adding unreferenced qualifiers that don't seem likely", you actually rolled back to several unreferenced changes that had been added recently by a new account and an IP. I have thus rolled the page back to the last version by User:Funandtrvl, reverting the aforementioned changes. Cheers. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I may have well become confused. I think I saw something something that looked off and reverted it without checking carefully what I was reverting to.  I was Wikipedia-ing while distracted.  Thanks for putting it back the way it was--I think that's best, and it's time for some discussion on the talk page (especially from your new participants).  I only came to that page because of User: SAMK71, who has some rather, um, strong feelings about both Canadian English as well as his own ability to interpret what is "true" Canadian English (despite what our guidelines and relevant dictionaries say, for example).  You can see my discussion within him above and on his talk page. To be honest, this is my first experience with nationalist editing practices with reference to Canada...not a problem I had guessed existed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm...excuse me...there are so many errors in "Canadian English" that I tried to correct and are now deleted. For example "shag" in doesn't mean 'stag' or whatever...it means having sex!!! If you say to a Canadian "are you going to a shag?" They will automatically think you're meaning sex!! "Taking the piss" in Canada, especially western Canadian and many members of the Canadian Forces, know that that term is either taking advantage or making fun. Why is it that the Americans are allowed to change and edit and dictate what is and what isn't Canadian, but when a Canadian goes to edit what is Canadian it's deleted and yet is dictated to by Americans!! It's so infuriating!! America and Canada are two very distinct, serparate countries!!! FYI...SAMK71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC).


 * If you provide references to support your claims, you may add them to the article. However, Canada's a big country. It has a lot of regions, a lot of subcultures, a lot of international residents and migrants...we cannot and do not take your word that such and such claim is true or not.  Wikipedia requires that information be verified.  Please provide that verification.  In cases where verification is not available, the information should usually be removed, unless in rare cases where we can show the information is common sense (something that all people would agree to).  The way to figure out if something meets that standard, you need to discuss the issue on the talk page.  As a side note, no one cares what country you or anyone else is from.  Heck, I don't even know what country you're from.  I know you claim you are from Canada, but, of course, I have no proof of that.  And, to be honest, I don't really care (nor does anyone else).  We're not being "americans dominating canadians"--we're merely holding you to the same standard we hold everyone else on Wikipedia.  Please take a read through WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, 3 of our core policies which help explain what I'm saying.  These are policies which everyone who edits here must follow, no matter what the article is, no matter where they are from. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx
Thank you for amending the quotation in the Sen. Grassley article. While I had looked at the page at requesting edits of semi-protected pages, I did not notice the specifics that showed up in the box once requested, or I would have been more specific. I think it is just as likely that the referenced article misprinted his quote, but have not found an audio or video to compare directly. 75.202.33.251 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanx =
Thanx for pointing out the Red Bull quote issues I have properly amended with a National Institute of Medicine quote.(Undid revision 400586979 by Qwyrxian (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside the box Elephant in the room
Thus far, the focal points of disagreement in the Senkaku Islands dispute have been somewhat narrowly confined. The serial threads have been concerned with differing versions of history in the East China Sea. For me, the justification for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here: ""Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind will acquire enhanced, rather than diminished, importance as a result of the narrowing of the 'physical' rather than the 'legal' sources of right. It is important to remember that, although historical claims were not successful in the Gulf of Maine case, the identification of a 'status quo' or 'modus vivendi' line in Tunisia-Libya was of decisive importance in confirming the equitableness of the first stage of delimitation. States will scrupulously avoid, more than ever, any appearance of acquiescence where acquiescence is not intended; prudent coordination can be expected between petroleum and mining ministries and the legal advisers of foreign ministries." &mdash; Highet, Keith. (1989). "Whatever became of natural prolongation," in."

Please consider two related sentences at Strait of Juan de Fuca. Please consider this Canadian paradigm and paradox. It suggests an outside the box perspective which may assist us in further discussions about the Senkaku Islands dispute. When the questions about the article name are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved. Is it arguably useful to compare and contrast our best guesses about prospective negotiations between China and Japan with negotiations about a maritime boundary dispute between the US and Canada? Would it be helpful for this diff -- or some edited version of this diff -- to be posted at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and/or Talk:Spratly Islands dispute and/or Talk:Liancourt Rocks? --Tenmei (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A. "Resolution of the issue should be simple, but has been hindered because it might influence other unresolved maritime boundary issues which are in dispute between Canada and the United States" &mdash; see, e.g., Charney, Jonathan I. et al. (2005).
 * B. "If Canada holds that the principle of natural prolongation applies to the Juan de Fuca Canyon on its Pacific Ocean coast, the assertion could undermine Canada's argument in the Gulf of Maine boundary dispute.  In this Atlantic Ocean context, Canada favors an outcome based on the principle of equidistance" &mdash; see, e.g., McRae, Donald Malcolm et al. (1989) ; and Johnston, Douglas M.  et al. (1991).
 * I don't believe any of this would be useful at that page. All of this is an argument about what the name "should be" (or, more accurately, who "should" own the islands and associated resource rights).  None of which Wikipedia cares about. This is something we are not allowed to discuss on Wikipedia Talk pages, per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX.  And if you're treating Wikipedia as part of a larger "fight" between China and Japan about who controls the islands (that is, seeking to make the name or article go one way or the other to help "establish" what is true and thus influence the larger debate) then you're not approaching Wikipedia in the proper perspective.  Our only job is to ascertain what other, reliable sources say about the issues at hand.  That's it.  As for the Canada/US debate, it could only be included in the article somewhere if you had a source explicitly connecting the two.Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is apples and oranges. Qwyrxian -- your comment illuminates two aspects of a core issue, not only in relation to the Senkaku Islands dispute. You appear either unwilling or unable to acknowledge an elephant in the room. Alternately, you appear to reject any recognition of the ways an elephant in the room affects the development of an article.  If this assessment has merit, the consequences are problematic &mdash; which justifies any risks which attend making it explicit.  In other words,
 * TRUE: All of this is  not  an argument about what the name "should be" ....
 * TRUE: All None of this is an argument about what the name "should be" ....
 * IMO, our work together is not an abstract exercise divorced from off-wiki, outside the box reality.


 * Perhaps one paragraph from above needs to be revised and supplemented.
 * For me, the justification perceived rationale for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:
 * ""Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind ..."
 * This kind of perceived justification affects the development of many articles. It becomes an unstated factor in editing and in discussion threads.  A meaningful step in a process of countering the effects of this kind of elephant in the room is to state it explicitly.


 * I wonder if it bears repeating that when the questions about the name of our Senkaku Islands article are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved. --Tenmei (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian - thanks for the edits
Qwyrxian - your assessment is nearly correct. My company, Core and More Technologies, is not a partner of said company -- however we do provide services. Our intent in posting a reference here on Wikipedia is not to promote - but rather to cite a company with more experience than most in the emergency communication industry. Our intent was to create a new point of reference - to tie together the technologies and peripheral items that comprise a robust system of this type. We think this to be of good public service, as these systems are commonly used to mitigate loss of life and property when disaster strikes. There are literally hundreds of providers in the marketplace - but very few have the proven experience of this entity. So it is really not about promotion - but education. That said, we will work to resolve the items you cited and will not be removing them. Please feel free to send me any additional information that might help us along - and thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. Since you are in a business relationship with them, it does look like you fall under the restrictions found in the conflict of interest guidelines.  So, just do be extra careful to think about things like WP:NPOV.  If you're ever not sure, the best thing to do is to do is to post a prospective edit on the article's talk page first and let other editors take a look.  What that article needs most of all right now are references to AtHoc in independent, reliable sources—that is, newspaper articles, trade journals (but not reprinted press releases), scientific journals, possibly even government documents—that establish that AtHoc is a notable company.  A key judge for any article about a company on Wikipedia is whether or not that company is notable; this is usually established by showing that the article has received significant independent coverage.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it and will do. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review Qwyrxian
I added a couple of more sources to my page. Let me know if they are reliable sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakozaib (talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to Quinceañera: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ialsoagree (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not convinced that the comment was actually vandalism--that page gets a lot of editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, and I can just barely imagine that the user thought the comment was helpful. I do regularly use both Twinkle and Huggle for vandalism warnings, as well as hand writing warnings when I think it's appropriate.  01:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject East Asia Scope & Ratings
Hello. This message is to inform you that I have called for a reexamination of the scope document and the ratings system used by the project. The ratings system especially has run into problems and could benefit from a simplification and generalizations. The scope, too, could be reexamined to the same end. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia and discuss the matters so that we can reach a community consensus. I'd like to have it done before Christmas, so I can spend the break making any necessary changes. The importance discussion is at the top of the page. The scope discussion is at the bottom, but we can move them together if we need to.

Thank you,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Softpedia for deletion
The article Softpedia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Softpedia (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Methodology
Qwyrxian -- Perhaps you overlooked a brief, obscure comment by Bobthefish2, who wrote:
 * "You should be careful about supporting one's "questions about methodology" when he has yet to make any actual arguments to support such allegations."

I construed this sentence as being addressed to me and about San9663 because I used the word "methodology" in the immediately preceding diff. I wrote,
 * "Yes, I do not dispute that San9663's research was constructive, persuasive, appropriate; but there was also another significant factor which was given inadequate attention in the context of questions about methodology."

I don't fully understand Bobthefish2's sentence. Perhaps it is unnecessary to dwell on it? Could it be that Bobthefish2 perceived a complaint where none was intended? Let's remove this from the list of things which might affect collaborative editing in the future. The word "methodology" has nothing to do with anyone's individual searches. As far as I can tell, each search has been transparent. Rather, in the context of my sentence above, the methodology issue has to do with the Google search engine in general. Our common interests are united in parsing Google's relationship to Wikipedia's core principles and policies. Please see Search engine test and my comments at Talk:Senkaku Islands today (here →here →here). --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)z
 * I didn't understand either. I figured it was some sort of complaint about the type of searches, but I wasn't sure specifically what the complaint was.  On the other hand, I'm not really worried about it--if the point is important, I'm sure Btf2 will elucidate.  But every detail not be hashed out in, well, detail.  Going over every details almost inevitably leads to tendentious arguing that has little to do with the actual topic at hand.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in the process of acknowledging and responding to this complaint, my diff shows that I am mindful of complaints; and the diff seeks to redirect attention towards Search engine test and WP:Five pillars. This may have been a rare exception to the general rule? --Tenmei (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to reply. It's certainly up to you what you respond to or don't.  It can't hurt too much, but I just don't want to get drawn into a "You said that I said that this is what we did before, but actually what I said was that what we did before wasn't that but was actually something else based on what he said."  I think part of the reason I'm tolerating this RfC is that I wasn't a part of any of the previous move debates/rfcs/rms, so to me this is still "fresh". I can understand why those who've been involved for longer want to move on.  But, because nobody's edit warring right now, and because the last discussion I saw was based on searches that were clearly fundamentally flawed (more so than just the normal problems with Google searches that you've noted), I don't really have any major problem with how things are proceeding at the moment.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian -- Does the graphic at the right represent something about the goal towards which our collaborative editing of Senkaku Islands is trending? Is this potentially helpful? Does this graphic representation help to describe our objectives? Please see Candidate solution? Just a thought? --Tenmei (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

VAT FREE IMPORTS CHANNEL ISLANDS
Dear Qwyrixian. FYI I think you need to review your changes in the light of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/online-shopping-vat-channel-islands Which verifies some of the assertions in the article. Bigbrothersback (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I finally got a look at the article today; I don't see that it effects anything I've changed so far--everything so far was removed as being not directly related to the article in question, or being unsourced, or being supported by a non-reliable source. For example, nothing in that article confirms that "In The Channel Islands the 'offshore fulfilment industry' experiences peak demand in the pre-Christmas period, and provides seasonal employment in previously fallow periods to complement the established tourism and agriculture industries" or that "Recently the variety of goods through the Channel Islands offshore fulfilment industry has increased with cosmetics, car parts and memory cards being the main growth areas. Memory cards have been particularly successful as an LVCR product due to their small size and ease of mailing" (two sentences that were removed.
 * That link is, of course, a good, reliable source, and can certainly be used as a reference elsewhere in the article; as I do more editing, I'll look for ways to fit it in. I won't have time to work on the article for at least a few days, as I have a big project due at work so most of my WP editing is easy stuff that doesn't take too much thought. Since there's so much info in the article now, I don't want to approach the issue lightly.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

IRAN
Hi, There is a message for you in here In fact (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Qwyrxian. You have a new message at this page.Message added 03:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC). In fact (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again I thank you for helping. By the way, as it is stated in the beginning of Iran's talk page, "Iran was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. " What shall we do in order to improve the article to meet the good article criteria? In fact (talk) 09:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The specific concerns that lead to delisting can be found here. If you wanted to improve the article to become listed as a good article again, the first step would be to meet those concerns.  Then, the next step would be to look over all of the good article criteria, and make sure that the article meets all of them.  After that, you can either go directly to ask for a Good Article Review, or to WP:Peer Review first (the latter seems to be preferred).  I probably won't have time myself to assist in the near future, but I may be able to help in a month or two.  I've only gone through the GA process once myself, on Sea of Japan naming dispute, but that article was approved as a good article after some work.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK! I'll go for it. Hope to see you soon! *** in fact ***   (contact)  11:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)