User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 54

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Fordx12 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd new editor deleting your comments on Raging Bull and The Departed Talk pages.
To: User:Qwyrxian

There appears to be an odd editor deleting your comments and my comments on the Raging Bull and The Departed Talk pages. Could you look at this. AutoMamet (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I hatted your comments at Raging Bull because they were off topic; they were about The Departed. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, the correct way forward is 1) AutoMamet, you stop making comments about 1 article on the talk page of article 2; and 2) Everyone else just hats (collapses) what doesn't belong, and stops all of the other removals, strikeouts, etc. If some older stuff is on the page but isn't really related, it's not harming the encyclopedia building process in any way by leaving it there. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

To: User:Qwyrxian; message received here and on the Talk pages. During the sudden flurry yesterday of users, i did include a short response to your previous statement to me on The Departed and i am enclosing the time stamp below for identifying it on The Departed Talk page for your identification of it. If you could glance at it there for its context if possible.

"Answer to User:Qwyrxian question. There was no comment at all on the threaded edit which you have correctly identified above (neither consensus nor non-consensus). Since this threaded edit on Infernal Affairs did not include one single mention of any of the Whitey Bulger references disputed, it looked sufficiently independent that it could be posted. I cannot post it in the presence of your comment, though I was not claiming any consensus or non-consensus for it. It has been in a "no comment" situation for over three days and posting it as a simple edit (of material already previously in the article only reformatted) would have allowed the normal edit process to start. Nothing more than this was suggested. AutoMamet (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)" <---time stamp on The Departed Talk page. AutoMamet (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just so you don't get confused, I've read this both here and at the article's talk page, and I believe I've already answered it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For User:Qwyrxian; Message received. Four or five weeks ago i had asked for your assistance regarding threats made against me by user OldJ concerning sockpuppetry and his making false/misleading reports related to his threats. At the time you had told me that all was well with no sockpuppetry, and then posted warnings to user OldJ about edit warring and 3RR violations. He apparently took this badly and has been making a backdoor attempt to have my account blocked behind your back for sockpuppetry.

Since i have been posting my edits as big as a truck on the “Raging Bull” and “The Departed” Talk pages, i thought first that he had used your help to make his misrepresented recent sockpuppetry accusation against me. After reading through his edit history as best I could, he appears to have done this behind your back by shopping for various Administrators by making misrepresented/selectively ambiguous reports until he finally found an Administrator who gave in to his request.

After you placed your warning to him for edit warring, he then decided his chances for his own version of retribution would be to first shop for Administrators by going to Admin:Shirt a month ago, who seemed to humor him at first and then did not pursue the matter any further. Although you were “always there” on the Raging Bull Talk page, he decided again not to inform you but to take a backroad to shop for another Administrator to complain about his misrepresented sockpuppetry complaint and found Admin:Bbb. By misspelling my name subtly, User OldJ kept any warning from coming up on either my screen or your screen, and Admin:Bbb finally just granted the sockpuppetry request, even though i had previously requested him last month to reconsider his page protection for “The Departed”.

This really sounds like User OldJ has been sandbagging both you and sandbagging me. You were always there on both the Raging Bull Talk page and The Departed Talk page, and my edits have been posted as big as trucks on both of those Talk pages. When i saw that a WP:ANI was filed against User:OldJ last week, I tried to warn his new target user:Battleship, but it was too late and my account was locked because of User OldJ’s misrepresented reports while continuing to shop for an Administrator to grant his misguided request. This sounds like poor policy for the encyclopedia and the sandbagging is unbecoming of Wikipedia in general. User OldJ seems to have cornered this approach of dr jeckl/mr hyde, presenting himself as a gentleman to Administrators, while his edit history and WP:ANI reports against him show him edit warring arbitrarily with regular editors at the same time and in multiple cases. Could you look at this? Over half of the IP computers at the library are inaccessible now as well. AutoMamet.146.203.126.246 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Um...you should be able to edit Wikipedia just fine from a logged in account. When we block IP addresses from editing because of vandalism problems, we generally don't stop people who have accounts from logging in. If you are attempting to log in and are being blocked, you need to follow the instructions that you receive--there's a way to post a special type of unblock request on your account that helps you get around the problems of editing from a shared, blocked IP address. Additionally, I don't see anything that User:The Old Jacobite did recently that would have resulted in your IP address being blocked.
 * As for the other comments...to be honest, I think you've gone off the deep end. First of all, are you trying to tell me that this is not you? I saw those a week ago and I just assumed they were you editing while logged out. They sure sound like you and are directly related to your dispute on Raging Bull and Departed. I didn't react to them because I didn't think of it as sockpuppetry, just as you editing while logged out mistakenly. I suppose it could be a different editor with a grudge against TOJ.
 * Also, I've looked at some of the IP address that TOJ reported to Shirt58. And there is no question whatsoever that some of those belong to you--two different users don't add the exact same content using the same style of edit summaries. Now, again, perhaps you just forget to log in a lot.
 * So, here's the solution: first, figure out whatever autoblock is causing a problem on your account, and request that it be bypassed. Second, never edit Wikipedia again in the context of your disputes about Scorcese and these movies without logging in. Every time you go to make an edit, before you click "save", check the upper right hand side of the screen, and ensure that you are logged in.
 * Also, there was no sand-bagging or deliberate deception. If someone types your name on Wikipedia, you aren't supposed to be automatically notified. That only happens if someone uses the User:Auto Mamet formatting. And, I'll point out, that that feature only came into existence about 6 months ago--before then, people weren't automatically notified of anything.
 * With Battleship, I'll point out that Battleship was the one who report TOJ, not the other way around.
 * What's really the underlying issue here? I feel like you're lashing out because you're not getting the results you want on these movie/bio pages. There is no grand conspiracy against you. All there is is a group of Wikipedia editors who seem to believe that what you want to add to articles does not meet our policies. A number of these editors are highly respected and have lots of experience in dealing with our rules. You may have to accept that your versions simply aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean they're bad ideas, or that you're a bad writer--it simply means that the consensus is against your version, because the consensus is that your version doesn't meet policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To:User:Qwyrxian; The account is presently completely blocked since last Saturday following a misrepresented/falsified report by UserOldJ last Saturday on the Talk page for Admin:Bbb. Is it possible that this is not showing up on your screen? The entire sense of my note above changes the moment you confirm that Admin:Bbb has blocked the account last Saturday following a misrepresented/falsified report by User OldJ. Please confirm this. AM (accidental IP access only for this message following large range blocks by Admin:Bbb.) 146.203.130.210 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see it. Okay. You are blocked for sockpuppetry. And the block was absolutely, completely legitimate--you used more than a dozen IP addresses to edit Wikipedia while also maintaining a named account, and you never explicitly stated that those accounts were all owned by you. At this point, you are blocked, and should not be editing anywhere on Wikipedia, including here. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to request an unblock on your named account as explained by the block message. Finally, please note that ToJ didn't file that SPI (Sockpuppet investigation); that was done by User:Binksternet. I'm going to copy this to your talk page--do not reply anymore here; every time you reply here you are evading your block, and decreasing your chances of being unblocked. If you want to continue the conversation, you will need to do so on your talk page while logged in (you can still edit your talk even though blocked). You will need to focus any such conversation on the actual reasons for the block--that is, are you really going to attempt to argue that those IP addresses don't belong to you? If not--if you're going to actually admit to the sockpuppetry, which I think you should, you'll need to start to explain why that happened, and how you plan to behave differently in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. 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.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Petermusngi's at it again
I've notice that some of the edits on the following article are vandalized again (please do see history) using different IP addresses:

DWSU-FM - This article will be returned to its original form. List of ABS-CBN channels and stations My Only Radio

Hamham31 Heke!  KushKush!  04:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected each for 2-4 weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeman (director)
Q, a newbie editor posted about this on my tp based on some removal they did that resulted in an edit war. ON looking I removed some BLP vio and a copyvio image, but there's likely more of both. Can you take a look please? (I'd also suggested that they check with Bbb23). I'm strapped for wikitime for a few days. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this is by no means the first time, I've blocked the user for 2 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Q, I wasn't aware of any of the history, I was just responding to a post on my TP. There seems to a bigger issue here as some of the linked articles also carry some controversial claims that aren't cited. I'll try to take a look later in piecemeal, as this article still needs further checking. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Help with this user
Hi, this user whom you have interacted with before, User talk:PJDF2367, continues to ignore warnings. Just take a look at the edits on the Akbar article: no edit summary despite notices, removal content, dramatically changing some sourced content and possible POV pushing. I'm concerned about the article and the user has not replied to even my query about all these edits. Can you please help? Thanks for your time, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can, of course, revert PJDF per WP:BRD; then, if the user re-reverts you, let me know, and I'll point out that the EW has to stop.
 * Having said that, though...while he may have added primary sources, I'll point out that the version prior to his edits contains a lot of unsourced content, which is just as bad. So you can revert back to that version, but, ideally, you should also go through and remove all of the unsourced content.
 * As for the POV, I can't immediately see what the problem is, but that can be explored after you see what happens when you revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help, I didn't revert the contentious edits because most of those sources I do not possess. There were a few good editors, who tried to nominate it since they had the necessary refs. There was a discussion (here: Talk:Akbar/Archive_4) where they removed all the primary sourced content. Sadly, these users are not active anymore and this page has been neglected.
 * I'm only worried because this page has been subjected to various POV-pushing in the past. I'll try to review all those changes and report back to you later. Have a nice day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hafaz Refrisa Maulana Blocked
Please Sorry I Am Blocked Dont' Touch! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Don't touch what? I've deleted all of the unacceptable pages you made (I hope I haven't missed any). I'm sorry that you are blocked, but that's because you are trying to use Wikipedia for something totally not what it is for. We are not a place for you to host your personal information. You need to find a webhost for that. If you actually want to edit Wikipedia (the encyclopedia), based on our rules, go to your first account and request to be unblocked. If not, please don't edit anymore, as either an IP or under a "new" account. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Damn you Qwyrxian are you stupid! My Name Is Hafaz Refrisa Maulana I am born Malang from Indonesia And Religion Islamic. Please Don't Touch Blocking, And Don't Delete Page. Is Similar Soccer Player Creation by Abdul Qayyum Ahmad Understand?! Dammit?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafaz Refrisa Maulana III (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your real life name and religion don't have anything to do with the issue. No, your "creation" is nothing at all like Abdul's, because you haven't ever added anything to Wikipedia. He's adding content to articles that improve the encyclopedia. You're just using Wikipedia as a webhost to list your favorite sports teams and players, and, before, to host some sort of fantasy/comic content. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Please go to Wordpress, blogger, livejournal, or some other website that allows you to write anything you want. If you are not here to help improve the encyclopedia, you can't edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But Qwyrxian ? Please Don't Blocked and Don't Delete Page!! Or You Fire Now. Hafaz Refrisa Maulana Is Indonesian People It like this Abdul Qayyum Ahmad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.58.57 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Every time you create that page and I find it, I will delete it. Every time you create a new account, I will block it. And if you attempt to edit as an IP again, even here on this page, I will block that IP. The only way that you can edit Wikipedia is that if you go log in to your Hafaz Refrisa Maulana account, and then follow the instructions on your talk page about how to request an unblock. To do that, you will need to explain how you will behave differently--specifically, you're going to have to explain what you are planning to contribute to the encyclopedia. Not your user page, not secret pages in your userspace, but actual pages in the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hafaz Refrisa Maulana is Don't Blocking And Can New Edit Page Qwyrxian. Hafaz Refrisa Is Soccer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.59.128 (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hafaz, I think that your English level isn't high enough to contribute to English Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but you're not here to help make Wikipedia better, so you cannot edit. Sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Qwyrxian Are You Fire And Foul. Hafaz Refrisa Maulana Is Soccer,Hafaz Don't Blocking User And Can Edit Page Now! Qwyrxian Idiot!
 * Hafaz, this is the last time I will reply to you. If you want to edit the encyclopedia, you can log in to your original account and explain exactly what you plan to edit. If you do not have the English ability to do so, you cannot be here. If you do not want to edit the encyclopedia, but want to use your account for something else, you cannot be here. Any future messages in any place other than on your talk page, while you are logged in, will be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

no need to "revert" a "Null" edit...comment
hi. there was no need to "revert" my last comment, as I made no actual edit. Read carefully. It was a "NULL edit"... I would think you would know what that means. I made no real edit or change...it was just a COMMENT edit. There was nothing really to revert. It was just to make a comment show there. Which WP allows. I did NOT revert the other editor's change at all in that case. I was simply making the point (which you seem to be dismissive of for some reason) that Blackberry users etc should arguably have SOME information on what is up with Instagram...and that WP recommendation is NOT to totally remove, but to modify and find better links. For some reason, you and that other editor don't see the need for that. Why is that? Gabby Merger (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry on the null edit; I left you a note on your talk page before I saw this comment here. As for the links, perhaps it would be better to discuss on Talk:Instagram, so that all interested editors can comment? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
i. I have removed this content assuming WP:BRD is global and all Wikipedians adheres to the content in the guideline.

ii. Although the controversial content is published in a secret web page that the Sri Lankan internet users cannot reach, it is not a reliable source as the publisher is not a recognized news organization. (The word "telegraph" is used by this wretched web site to gain recognition, but it is not a name of a news paper in Sri Lanka.)

iii. This website is not more than a gossip website and is not compatible with WP:RS and specially WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:QS and WP:BIASED.

iv. WP:YESPOV states "Avoid stating opinions as facts", But here it is not the case as this is merely the opinion of this web site.

v.Bodu Bala Sena is not a militant group, but in this controversial content, the word 'militant group' directly links to the Wikipedia article of Bodu Bala Sena. This ignores WP:SPECIFICLINK. To have a true understanding about this organization read this article.

vi. Religion in Sri Lanka is a good source for all Wikipedians to improve their understanding about the religious tolerance in Sri Lanka and to identify the difference between a extremist country (mono religious) and a non religious extremist country.

Thank you. DinoGrado (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasons 2 and 3 are great reasons to revert the edit, and if you had said something like "revert--that source doesn't meet WP:RS" I certainly would not have reverted you. The key is that under BRD, you can't revert just because you want to--you still need to have a specific, substantive (ideally, rule based) reason for deleting, and here, you have that. So I've self-reverted my revert of you, which again removes the info based on what you say is an unreliable source. If others disagree and say that is a source, then hopefully they'll discuss on talk. I will point out a few things you may want to consider if a discussion does occur. Reason 5 above is a problem, because a wordpress blog is basically never a reliable source, and 6 is not useful either because Wikipedia articles are also never reliable sources. And, of course, if there ends up being a dispute about whether or not that "Telegraph" website is reliable, outside input can always be sought at WP:RSN. Please note that I am not actually agreeing with you that it's unreliable--I haven't looked at it myself, so I don't know, but I AGF that you think it's unreliable, and thus we shouldn't include the info until there's a clear consensus that it meets WP:RS. Thanks for the explanation here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your decision to revert the content. DinoGrado (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Genre warrior
Hi, it's me again. I've had quite a few encounters with them mainly when they disrupt FAs/GAs and find that most patrollers don't give them any attention. I've asked an experienced editor in music before, and he said it is a big problem and that I was doing the right thing (in reverting them, a painfully long process).

The problem is, I've reported two so far at the AIV and found that admins are were less inclined to block them. Not that they said anything, just that regular IPs were getting blocked continuously and the one I reported took two hours. I was wondering what is your opinion on this or any advice. (See one recent example 112.198.153.130). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that genre warring isn't actually vandalism. It's much closer to edit warring or original research. So many admins won't act on them if posted to AIV. Plus, if the genres that are already there are also unsourced (as they often are), it's pretty hard to justify blocking one person for adding/changing unsourced genres.
 * Unfortunately, I don't know of a better solution. My person preference would be that all genres were removed from every song/album/band article unless they were verified in sources, and then any addition/change of unsourced ones would be clearly wrong, and thus we could more easily justify semi-protection or blocks for edit warring.
 * Perhaps the easiest thing for you would be to keep reverting, and then, if it rises to an unreasonable level, then request page protection at RFPP. THe protections will start out short, but should escalate if the problem remains.
 * If you have one IP that's just making a bunch of genre changes across multiple articles, and has been warned against the behavior, WP:ANI should be able to handle it relatively easily. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been most helpful, thanks a lot. I'll make sure to try ANI or request protection. Have a nice day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Krizpo
Looks like here's Krizpo again:. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I have reverted most of 5832's edits, I'm not certain enough it's Krizpo to file an SPI; I'll wait and see. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thomas
Hi, I think all of the Thomas pages need protecting but pages for series 3-13 need protecting. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I semi'd 4, 5, 6, & 12 for 2 weeks; the rest didn't have significant current disruption. Let me know if the problem moves on to other articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I will. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Help sought!
Hi there, been going through some rough phase of a wiki career. So a bit of guidance from you, on the following would be of help. I have a lingering doubt, and I wish to be clear before I resume editing in case to avoid further disputes. Is it acceptable to cite references of a different language into En.Wiki? (I find it hard to get them;the reliable references in English for some articles)

Also when can we have videos into an article? And does it matter from which site we take them from? For instance, I intended to add these youtube links as means of external links(directing to the respective speeches), but in the end I figure I had done something I had not supposed to. It would help if you could clarify regarding both. I find Referencing kind of not uniform across wikipedia, almost 70-80% of the BLPs are poorly sourced, but yet I find it amusing to get involved in such disputes. -- CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 05:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Foreign language references are fine, though it is questionable to build an entire article on nothing but non-English references (not forbidden, but it can be more difficult). As a general rule, if someone questions the accuracy of what you have added, it's your responsibility to provide at least a rough translation on the article's talk page. Like if you put something into Moon that said "Despite what others have said, scientists from Country X have conclusively proven that the moon is made of cheese [foreign language ref]", well, I'd certainly want to know a lot about that source. Do make sure that any foreign language source meets all of our rules for WP:RS; especially take care of foreign language news sources, as not all countries/cultures have the same journalistic traditions as WP takes for granted in English; for instance, Indian newspapers often blur the lines between opinion pieces and news pieces (or, at least, they don't clearly mark which pieces are "opinion" and which are "fact"), even in English.
 * As for youtube links, there is no prohibition on linking to them, but the rules in place make it nearly impossible to ever link to them. The main concern is copyright--we don't allow any links (in either external links or references) that link to copyright violations. And the problem is, any video on YouTube that is not a self-produced video is almost certainly a copyright violation. You could link to, for example, a video of a TV news program, but only if it was posted by the news production company itself--anyone who just copied that news program from the news site or straight off of a satellite/cable feed and reposted to Youtube could not be used. For the speeches that I see you're trying to reference, it can be even trickier, and they almost certainly can't be linked to. The problem is that the speech itself would be copyrighted to Seeman, while the video would be copyrighted to the video taker (or the company that employs her/him). If either of those hasn't given permission, we probably can't link. The truth is, though, you probably don't need a source to verify that he gave speeches in several countries; if you did want to verify it, you could do so with a self-published source, like if he had a list of presentation dates/places on his own website.
 * You are certainly correct that 70-80% of BLPs (heck, all articles) are pretty weakly sourced. Still a work in progress, I suppose. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That helped a lot, thanks. The thing is most of the media sources in India(often considered the criteria for WP:RS) neither present an event in its complete terms nor is there a neutral perspective ever if any. A lot of issues and persons have been badly attacked by almost every section of the mainstream media, and it is so extremely rare to hit upon a site that gives some fair perspective or the other side of the coin but then they are not generally regarded in front of what the usual sources like The Hindu or the TOI which omits to cover certain parts of India and most of what is published is highly opinionated. The other day, content based on a fairly reasonable source was removed and this was hugely absurd since none of other mainstream media even covered the 2011 Tamil Nadu elections at a length, except for announcing the winning coalition. Nothing much(in fact nothing at all) is mentioned of this person and his campaigning that brought about the fall of the ruling alliance. At the moment, various Youtube channels and small-scale news agencies(that probably don't even own a website of their own) are the only bearers of pieces of information and its bloody unbelievable that I'am the first wikipedian trying to get all these into Wikipedia. Excluding this personality, There are several others more who are making significant popular impact, but are nowhere to be found in Wikipedia. Its more pitiful that the already experienced and active Indian Wikipedians are not giving a damn either. It only brings editors like me to the suspicion that the existing chaps are perhaps too opinionated and biased to ignore true and essential information coming out, and worse still they are the first to sponsor/support opposition towards others who try to step in for the sake by bringing WP:RS every time. Thousands of other articles meanwhile, present heck loads of falsehood and bulls*it. I'am not using that as an excuse, but you know, its just surprising(and suspicious) the extent of controversy that is inflicted on a select few articles. As a relative newbie, I find Its tough to resist intimidation and not crumble at the same time. Thanks for your reply, it was very informative, and I'am glad I was worth all that.-- CuCl2  (talk . contr . mail) 13:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yes, sourcing can be quite difficult...and, in some cases, this means we end up with unfair or incomplete articles...I'm sure that there are many many articles for which much could be said but never will be because we can't find a reliable source to verify the info. Try not to get frustrated, and don't try to find a way around the sourcing rules...my opinion is that it's always better to say less than it is to say something that can't be verified, and it's certainly the case that we should never say anything negative or contentious about living people that can't be verified. Good luck, and one thing that helps me: it's really mostly about just doing what we can, rather than doing it all (or even a measurable percentage). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. Im very much aware of and believe in verification and citations are extremely essential for a project such as this one. The thing is, when it comes to highly contentious issues like a BLP or a historic/ethnic/political article, at least a minority here use the WP:RS/better source tags and violate the WP:NPOV. Minuscule incidents/components are heavily manipulated and the whole picture is painted in a different color. Lack of effective site monitoring of these topics or dedicated admins who take these articles up themselves, is probably the cause I guess. Anyways, Fully have to agree with what you have to say. Greetings.-- CuCl2  (talk . contr . mail) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
In the following edits you recently made simple excisions of unreferenced material to articles about politicians from Nagorno-Karabakh.    You left those articles with a single reference -- which were not superior to the references I supplied to Vardges Ulubabyan, Rudik Hyusnunts and Hovik Jivanyan, three of the articles you nominated for deletion. Yet you showed no willingness to withdraw or amend your nomination. It is frankly mystifying. Am I missing something?

There are three parties with representatives in the NKR legislature. The majority party has 18 seats. The Free Motherland Party has eight seats. The remaining party has three seats.

You seem to have nominated only the articles about the eight individuals from the Free Motherland Party. This is just a coincidence, right? Geo Swan (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Coincidence? Yes and no. These article are the creation of a sockmaster, who has never once attempted to discuss things with other editors. Furthermore, the added content is basically always a copyright violation--sometimes I can verify it with certainty, and other times I am fairly sure because of the formatting (the same across multiple articles), but it's a translated copyvio so I can actually point to the original. This person needs to be stopped, and nothing actually matters more than stopping the copyvio.
 * So we've got these articles that are certain copyvios, and for which I was unable to quickly find references. You produced some references, but at least some of them certainly fail WP:RS. So I feel that withdrawing the AfD would be irresponsible, because so far for several of them we have not yet found even the single RS needed to pass BLPPROD. This, btw, would be about the second most important thing we must enforce on WIkipedia: we cannot cannot cannot have articles sitting around on living people without reliable sources.
 * Furthermore, I also think the consensus developing on the AfD is not only wrong, but ridiculous. A person who is not a member of a recognized government cannot pass WP:POLITICIAN, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent for us to basically implicitly recognize the de facto government as if it were a de jure government. Thus, we must either 1) show that some/all of these people are both a member of the "government" non-state and a member of the larger, actual government. Absent that, they need to meet WP:GNG.
 * So, it's not a coincidence, because I'm trying to stop the actions of someone violating 2 extremely important WP rules. Since this person is probably an employee or supporter of that political party, it appears that I'm targetting a single party...but I assure you, I don't know anything about the politics of the region...I didn't even know about the existence of these pseudo-states until I read about them in Wikipedia. So there's no political malice or maneuvering on my part. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013. 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.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Monster (company)
Hi Qwyrxian. I've been looking for an editor that can chip-in on this article, where I have a COI, and so far I've been striking out. I was wondering if you had time to help out. There are a couple controversies atm that are covered twice with nearly identical content, once in dedicated sections and another time in the History section I authored. Given how controversial the material is, I don't think it's appropriate for me to edit it. After that, I just have a few more things on my To Do list and it should be GAN ready. CorporateM (Talk) 03:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this week I'm trying to keep myself only to watchlist following/reverting and emergency issues--no new big projects. Can you ping me in about 5-6 days? I think I'll have some spare time then. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll follow up next week. CorporateM (Talk) 13:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sea Shep category
Hiya. Eco-terorism category over at SSCS fits wiki policy and the scope of both articles. (SSCS mentions eco-terrorism, eco-terrorism mentions SSCS). But the people that really like SSCS don't want it there because it makes SSCS look bad. So a couple people keep removing it. Not sure how they can force that into a policy.. Help! What's next? We need experts. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Either eco-terrorism or an appropriate sub-cat should stay. I've seen that there's been a dust up at the page recently on a number of issues, but haven't chosen to get involved. This is one of those cases where it's tough for me to edit, because I know that, given the choice, I'd do everything I could to make the SSCS look bad. So whenever I go to edit the page or even discuss on talk, I have to work really hard to maintain neutrality. I can do it, but it takes a lot of time and effort which I haven't had recently. It may well be that the page needs to be protected soon (you can request that at WP:RFPP if you think it's time), but right now it seems to be just under the boundaries--the edits aren't entirely back-and-forth, and there seems to be constructive progress on at least some of the issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They are inventing sub-cats as a way of keeping information off the the page. "Sole-purpose sub-categories" if you will. The huge positive POV push on that page is something that I'd like direction on eliminating. It defies logic. I mean I've got no ties to Japan or any personal agenda other than the fact that the personal positive POV push of a couple article protectors just seems wrong. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WrongConclusionfrom2009Study
Hi Qwyrxian. I received this message from WrongConclusionfrom2009Study. Weird name, very specific message. How does a newcomer get to my account straight away? Maybe via Rajiv Malhotra and the connected pages? Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Most likely it's not a newcomer, but either an IP turned editor or a "returning" (i.e., socking) user who knows you from before. The user has added similar information to an article talk page; if that's some topic you're familiar with and edit on, feel free to chime in. I generally don't trust any new user who says anything about Indo-Aryan migration/ancestry issues except people like Fowler&Fowler & Sitush, because there's clearly some real world issues going on here which Wikipedia is just one battleground on. I know that's violating WP:AGF, but, well, it is what it is. That being said, since I generally don't trust most editors on said topic, it's entirely possible that the previous editor who added the Harvard info was the one who got it wrong....is this within your fields of knowledge? I know I don't need any more contentious issues to join in on.... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm catching up since a while, as you've noticed. I'll take a look. I'm afraid, though, I've got another one; see Buddha was not a HIndu. The same discussion was at Talk:Yoga. Sorry...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from the message which conclusion might be misrepresented in which way. I've expanded my reply at the Talk Page.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

European Youth Press
Dear admin,

in 2012, you deleted European Youth Press. The article can still be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Phasemajor5/European_Youth_Press_draft. I/we believe that this article should be restored as the initial criticism, that not enough secondary sources are available, is not true (anymore). The association has grown even more. With 25 member organisations for more than 60,000 young journalists, yearly events with the European Parliament (http://www.eurodesk.org/edesk/SearchDb.do?go=1&progId=EU0010000577&show http://www.europarl.europa.eu/eye2014/en/about-eye/partners.html and many more ) and cooperations e.g. with the UN Environmental program (http://www.unep.org/roe/Portals/139/documents/Newsletters/UNEP_News_April-final.pdf, http://www.internews.org/our-stories/profiles/30next/partner-european-youth-press), the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/eycb/Programme/annualdate_en.asp http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/eycb/pastnews_en.asp?toPrint=yes&) and many more associations, European Youth Press is relevant to wikipedia.

More external sources to the association include this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20001940, this one on the EYP FlagIt project in Brazil: http://www.oeco.org.br/reportagens/27315-campinas-amazonicas-sofrem-com-descaso-e-super-exploracao (check the link here: *Essa matéria foi produzida por Thaís Brianezi para o projeto “Flag It” http://www.oeco.org.br/noticias/26950-youth-press-fara-oficina-de-jornalismo-ambiental-no-brasil) and many more.

Looking forward reading from you and hoping that you will see this also like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol777 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as you have no relationship to the organization, feel free to edit that draft article to try and make it acceptable to Wikipedia standards. When you're done, THEN approach Qwryx about moving it back ... don't ask while it's still unacceptable  ES  &#38;L  10:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I will not pretend to have no relationship to the organisation as I do. I am a volunteer for this non-profit and am on purpose transparent about it (because I think that is how it should be done). Am I then not allowed to make changes? Do I have to ask someone else to do it? Sol777 (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Those who are involved in an organization have an inflated belief in the notability of the organization, and their edits typically are attempts to promote the organization - they have an inherent requirement to do so due to their position. Ethically, that's bad.  Indeed, there's a community discussion on right now that would 100% ban ANY edits by WP:COI editors across this entire project.  Asking someone else to do it is simply another blockable offence, and something you should not try.  As the "article" is a draft that has not been touched in over a year, you COULD try to fix it.  However, ANY edit that even smells like promotion or links to a non-reliable source will probably lead to problems, so be very very careful to review your edits before clicking "save".  As noted though, you will need to ask Qwryx to review its contents before moving it back to articlespace  ES  &#38;L  11:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ESL, the proposal is to ban paid advocacy, not COI edits (which are different). But, since the draft is outside of article space, you (Sol777) can work on it in the draft form. After you've done so, you can then let me know and I'll review it (no promises on speed). Without actually looking at the sources above, though, only their descriptions, the only one that has any indication of notability would be the BBC. Them being mentioned on the webpages of organizations that they work is not an independent source. But, again, feel free to work on it and let me know. I'm generally very strict on company notability, so if you can pass me, you'll probably be okay. You don't have to go through me; if you show it to me and I decline, there is another way you can propose, but it's more complicated, so it's probably easier to give me a crack at it first. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN
Hey Mate. I think you're very level-headed and have a good idea about, well, pretty much everything. I was wondering if you'd consider lending a hand at DRN now and again? Steven Zhang (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliments; while I would like to help at DRN, I doubt I'm going to have the time in the near future. I actually just had to drop out of DRN I was participating in as a disputant due to lack of time. I'm mostly just handling routine stuff and things I can do in short increments at the moment. However, I may get a chance to return to my prior levels of activity in 3-4 months, at which point I'll look into volunteering on a case or 2 at DRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

pasthun people page
do you want me to refer you to the wiki manual that i clearly followed and used and checked before asking to make the edits, the other user said that website/source did not match the world book and would not be reliable because we said his source wasnt reliable, and that doesnt mean it wasnt reliable towards wiki and it is, i actually work with multiple users looking into sources, add up all the numbers, they all equal way below the total and it makes sense, i also added more than one source for this page, the Joshua project was just more specific, thanks contact for more info rather then removing sources...etcColumbiax (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The Joshua Project is not a reliable source for ethnographic numbers. Period. They are a religious group, and 1) don't employ experts, and 2) don't have a strong reputation of fact-checking. They may not be used as sources for most factual data; they may possibly be appropriate for info about religious missionaries or about their own projects. This has been discussed on numerous talk pages and on WP:RSN. Please do not attempt to re-add them as a source for basically anything on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on Swaraj (Book)
I have come to notice that you undid the 'Controversy' section added by me few days back on Swaraj book by Arvind Kejriwal. First of all, I'd like to mention that I have provided the appropriate citation regarding this which is from a popular Hindi Daily 'Jagaran'. If there is a valid clarification on whether the news was wrong or so, please let me know. I'm also admirer of Arvind Kejriwal, hence I assure you that I haven't added the same due to some vandalism; but there must be clarification why that section has been removed by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flacmedia (talk • contribs) 03:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was vandalism, but the problem is that "Jagaran" does not appear to be a newspaper, but, rather, just a slightly fancy blog. As such, it doesn't met our guidelines for reliable sources. However, if you can find the claim listed in a source that does meet those guidelines, we may be able to re-add it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian- Simplyhired page
Hi,

I see you reverted my changes on including repemployment.com as partner site. For verification that repemployment.com is a partner site, please see this page- repemployment.com/independentsalesrepresentativeportal when it loads fully, you will find simplyhired jobs listed there. When you click there you may see it is redirected to simplyhired. Further, you ask for independent source, I think independent source is for information that could not be verified online. But if you see the proof on website itself then I think it is not needed. Please let me know.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIVERROMNIA (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry here is signature ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by FIVERROMNIA (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason we need an independent source is because we need verification that someone else has already paid attention to this news and found it important enough to comment on. Companies make hundreds, in some cases thousands of business deals every year; we do not allow Wikipedia pages to simply become a list of these deals. In other words, I'm not actually disbelieving that what you say is true--I accept that it is. What I'm saying is that it is not important enough to include in an encyclopedia article about Simplyhired. In Wikipedia terms, we would say that while all information must be verified, just because information is verified is not a guarantee that it should in an article. I hope this clarifies why I've removed the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

revert
Hi, may I ask why you reverted this? I am working on this article in huwiki, so I DID check these sources that they are valid. I actually have Nahm's book. Why did you revert it? Thanks, Teemeah 편지 (letter)  07:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that site a Wiki? It's not the same thing as doopedia (i.e., Doosan Encyclopedia). I can't read the site, but the entire layout sure makes it look like an open Wiki. Open-edited sites (like Wikipedia) never meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! I can understand the concern, since you cannot read hangul. This is Doosan Encyclopedia and it is a traditional encyclopedia with editorial staff. www.encyber.com, which was the original address redirects to doopedia.co.kr, this is the official website of the online Doosan Encyclopedia. To my knowledge it is not an openly editable encyclopedia. As I could see from roaming around there it works much like in Britannica now, that you can send in content to an article but they are reviewed and checked by the encyclopedia regular staff. It's not a free wiki platform. Kowiki also regularly uses Doosan as a source. If you still have concerns I advise that you ask the Korean native speakers at WikiProject Korea, as I am nowhere near native level in Korean, but since Doosan is widely used in kowiki as a source, I don't think we have a problem with this website. (It is also used as a source for a lot of other Korean articles on enwiki). Kind regards Teemeah 편지 (letter)  11:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Panadura Royal College
Do you think Panadura Royal College really needs to be fully protected to stop the abuse, or could semi-protection work? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't really fully protect an article indefinitely; we're really stuck with just long term or indefinite semi-protection. Luckily, I think there's only one to three people bent on adding their own personal opinions to the page, so we can just block them each time they pop up. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. I'm asking because, right now, you have it indefinitely fully protected. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops! That was my mistake. I meant to make it indefinitely semi-protected, not fully protected; I must have selected the wrong option when I turned on the protection in April. I've switched it down to semi-protection, which is what I'd intended. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --MorrowStravis (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hafaz Refrisa Maulana Blocked II
Qwyrxian We are now my page don't block and delete page! Or I Call American Police be prison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.28.112 (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you. Please read WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hafaz, which laws have I broken? Wikipedia is a privately owned website--no one has the right to post here, and anyone who posts here must follow our rules. You are not following our rules. Do you want to follow our rules? Do you want to start adding things to the encyclopedia? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Qwyrxian as 12 month ago I registration. So Thank You Loving I am Indonesia. And Qwyrxian are dead and should be jailed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.29.246 (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I should block you for making threats of violence and legal threats. Please tell me what laws I have broken. You don't have any "rights" to be here. I am glad that you love your country. I am glad that you like soccer and video games--it's good to have things you enjoy. But you can't just write about them anywhere you want. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hafaz Refrisa Maulana Don't Block,Delete Page And Qwyrxian because you naughty,understand ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.29.246 (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, honestly, I really don't understand. Could you please explain? This is a private website. Wikipedia's rules say that people who don't follow the rules can't edit here. Our rules say that you must be here to improve the encyclopedia. You are not--you're here to write about things you like in your user pages. That's against the rules. Do you understand? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sweetheart once you naughty, forgive not henceforth don't blocked user or I'm going to go now, Qwyrxian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.29.246 (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I still don't understand. But I do have a suggestion. English is clearly not your native language. We have a separate Wikipedia in Indonesian. If you go to in.wikipedia.org, maybe they can help you more. I really wish I could help--I wish I could explain, but I don't think you're understanding me and I'm definitely not understanding you. For now, though, it's very simple--you're not following our rules. If you want to follow the rules, please come back and talk to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Message
Regards.--Manojkhurana (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unintentional mistake
Hi, I have mistakenly and unintentionally marked an Edit as a minor edit, while it was not a minor edit. I AM aware that Help:Minor edit says, "Adding or removing visible tags or other templates in an article." Right now, I AM reading Help:Dummy edit, but it thought that I must notify an admin about that. If there is anything that You can do about fixing that unintentional mistake, I kindly request You to do so. Sincerely, ← Abstruce  10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Qwyrxian, I have made a dummy edit to the WP Article. And, I have marked the dummy edit as a minor edit. Please correct Me if I AM mistaken to consider dummy edits as minor edits. Any advice posted below would be appreciated. Sincerely, ← Abstruce  10:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no way to retroactively change from minor to normal edit. I would not mark a dummy edit as a minor edit, personally. So, the only real difference with a minor edit is the "m" tag that shows up before it, and the fact that for some people, minor edits don't show up on their watchlist. But since the point of a dummy edit is to leave a "note" to other editors, to me, marking it as a minor edit partially defeats that point. Now, I have my watchlist set to show minor edits, because I don't want to miss something marked that way (intentionally or unintentionally). But as for edits, I basically never mark things as minor edits. One thing to be especially careful of is that if you make a series of "major" (normal) edits, and then the very last edit you make is just a quick typo fix, then that whole series of edits won't show up on a watchlist set to ignore minor edits. What it really comes down to for me is that I just don't see any benefit in marking edits as minor, so I almost never do it. In this particular case, I don't think any harm has been done, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank You Qwyrxian, Thanks ←  Abstruce  08:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Colon El Nuevo
I did a thorough search on Colon El Nuevo and other profiles created by him. This is the complete list:


 * 152.16.51.158
 * 83.50.255.137
 * 71.111.202.252
 * CuriousColonal
 * Colombo-o-novo
 * Colombo.bz

The same change to the text of the Wikipedia page:


 * 24.40.207.142 \ Kolumbski
 * Colon El Nuevo

It is an encyclopedic article and it must be written within the guidelines laid out in WP:NOT, and WP:V. He uses Wikipedia as a forum or a soapbox. Thank you. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed searches. The similarity of Kolumbski's recent comments to some of the earlier ones is enough for me to go ahead and block that account. I presume COlon-El-Nuevo will return again at some point... Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I and other users of Wikipedia (Dougweller, Aries no Mur, Maunus, Attilios, etc.) we spent a year and a half to cancel his frequent POV changes. He had become a nightmare.

Colon El Nuevo is absolutely certain that Christopher Columbus was a Polish Prince. He does not know that the story is absolutely impossible: he should have known that the Władysław III was a homosexual and thus would have rather had sex with men rather than with women, ergo would not have children. The Church officially recognised his homosexuality and because of that, Wladyslaw is only King Crusader who has never been beatified.
 * Here goes the facts: Jan Długosz in his Chronicles of the Kingdom of Poland unambiguously suggested kings homosexuality.


 * Wladyslaw III was fighting with Turkey in the defence of Christian Europe and he was killed during a battle in 1444 near Warna (seven years before Christopher Columbus was born!).


 * Colon El Nuevo claims Władysław escaped to Madera after disaster near Warna. This escape is no a Historical Fact. It is only theory or rumour. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in the academic debate itself--all I care is that Wikipedia represents the real world opinion--and the evidence is clear that while there are a whole bunch of fringe theories out there, the only theory with wide academic support is the Genovese theory. Colon is clearly trying to push a fringe point of view, as you point out, and is hellbent on breaking WP rules to do it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I presume COlon-El-Nuevo will return again at some point...

Sure. Thanks again for your support. Have a nice day. --Daedalus&#38;Ikaros (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)