User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 9

Ronn Torossian
Ronn Torossian page folks have linked to a supposed sockpuppet. That wouldnt permit all negative material to be sourced nor inaccurate statements to be made. You made your opinions regarding fairness on Pinto page would think you'd continue there. Would you mind reviewing page ? --greenbay1313 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Greenbay has been forum and admin shopping this issue, and as a result there are a good number of complaints about this same issue in many places. Because the issue is mainly a BLP issue, I've been directing any discussion to BLPN. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I'm going to pass on this one. I'm already watching 5W, Pinto, and one other whose name escapes me that just went up for AfD. I don't want to devote all of my Wiki time to issues related to a New York publicity firm. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vadalism.
It is not blatant vandalism and it is common practice each year to show a little looseness to such humour. If Jimbo wales was against it I am sure he will intervene, else, please dont revert changes to other peoples talk pages, I will quite happily war the issue.  « l | Promethean ™ | l »   (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. It is much appreciated. Gscshoyru (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-addition to former employees lists
Hello Qwyrxian, I've just taken note that both the WCAU and KYW-TV articles have once again had substantial lists of former employees names added to them by an editor who has been contacted by both of us in the past regarding this editing practice. Once again, many of the names that were re-added do not have either a pre-existing article associated with them or a reliable reference attached. Today, the editor has affixed a single overarching linked reference to an 'ancient' Geocities site, that appears to me to have been self published by someone at some point in time. In my opinion this is insufficient to substantiate their presence in the article, although I do believe the material is being offered in good faith. I wonder if you could possibly have a look at this situation and offer your position. I've also taken note that the editor who re-added this material has comments from both of us in the past appearing on their talk page that are specifically related to this editing practice. Thank you for your time cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's add the KDNL-TV to that list as well, where another editor is implying in their edit summary that, "common knowledge" should be a sufficient grounds to substantiate the re-addition of the unreferenced list material. I'll follow this up later tonight or tomorrow as well. thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear in this latter case, despite what the editor claims in their edit summary, no other television stations in our category "Television stations in St. Louis, Missouri" contain this type of unreferenced former employee lists without pre-existing articles to back them up. I just checked. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reverted them all w/explanation, and added KDNL-TV to my watchlist. I'll be away for much of the day or longer, but will check back in eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your time and effort here. I think much of this sort of stuff is easily attributable to some editors who simply don't understand what our referencing requirements are actually all about. Others....I'm not so sure about. :) thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * yw. The more I think about it in contexts like this, the more I realize that, compared to basically everything else on the internet that allows open-editing (blogs, comments on news articles, etc.), Wikipedia is really...weird! I mean, there really is no other place where "anyone can edit" that also says, "but if you edit, you have to verify everything you write, you have to be neutral, you can't put in your own thoughts, etc."  I can totally understand why some people simply don't "get" what we're trying to do here.  Most of them drive-by once in a while, while others (especially in "fringe" topics and hot POV areas) insist on staying and trying to push what they think is "True" despite being told why their "truth" can't stay here in the way they want.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(butt) like with Paravar, you mean? Thanks for your support on that, btw. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That's a tough one for me to even understand, as an American (ex-American?).  I mean, intellectually, I can kind-of wrap my brain around the concept of castes/tribes/sects, and why it might, in theory, matter what the exact "ranking" of these groups are/was...but it still, emotionally, feels odd to me to get so worked up about exactly what job a certain group of people several hundred to thousand years ago held.  Then again, one of my article focuses is on a body of water, the very name of which causes great consternation among some countries, along with some islands, completely uninhabited and mostly uninhabitable, the ownership of which has come near to fundamentally disrupting the relationship between two of the worlds biggest economies.   And so it goes, I guess.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

10 wikipedia edits
I'm looking at adding a page on the website overclockers.com, a website I'm a member of, to wikipedia for another assignment we have in TC 210. Here's what I have so far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darklavalizard/overclockers I'm just wondering what else I need, other than a few more sentences and more sources to make sure it doesn't get deleted from wikipedia? Any other suggestions you can make, in regards to having an article based on a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darklavalizard (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A great question, and the answer actually also applies to Media Access Project. All stand-alone articles on Wikipedia must be about notable subjects]].  We have a bunch of different ways of measuring notability, but the one that is common to all articles is called the General Notability Guideline.  You can read the details on that page, but the basic idea is that, to be considered notable, the subject must have been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources.  In the article you made on overclockers, there are no independent references--just a link to the subject's page.  This means that, as written, the article would definitely deleted as soon as you added it to main space.  It would actually be speedily deleted, meaning it would deleted in a matter of hours, because it doesn't even assert why the website is "important" (a lower barrier than "notable").
 * So, in order for that article to go live, you're going to need to find independent, reliable sources that discuss the site. Most likely what you'll be looking for are articles in computing magazines, either in print or online.  Note that the sources will have to do more than just list the site as one among many--the discussion about the site needs to be "detailed" (it doesn't have to be the subject of the whole article, just more than a passing mention). Note also that self-published sites, like blogs and online forums, aren't reliable sources in almost all cases.  If the site has a high Alexa rating, that can also help, but it's not enough without sources.  One place to look for help may be WP:WEB, which is the specific notability guidelines for websites.
 * All of the above also applies to the MAP article. At the moment its also lacking the sources it needs to be a stand alone article. That needs to be remedied in order for that article to survive.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian (Part 2)
From reviewing your work you are a very fair editor can you review please ? 1: Where is statement Torossian is an active supporter of Israel - They appear to be clients, so lead should be removed ? 2: The Forward states something different regarding Our Jerusalem than does the other source on page jerusalem Post to which should be changed: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InTheSpotlight/Article.aspx?id=150936 During what would turn out to be a two-year stint in this country, Torossian was one of three founders - together with fellow Betar alumni and peers, today Likud MK Danny Danon and Kadima MK Yoel Hasson - of Yerushalayim Shelanu (Jerusalem Is Ours), a secular organization promoting the right of Jews to live anywhere they choose in the city of Jerusalem. 3: Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9] If Allen speaks about firm, why on Torossian's personal page ? 4: Torossian is active in supporting pro-Israeli causes, especially those associated with the Israeli right wing. ( THEY ARE CLIENTS - ANY SOURCES SAY OTHERWISE ?)& same goes with christian supporters of Israel - These are clients.

And the article seems to be biased & doesnt mention he has worked for Foreign Ministry and Tourism Ministry of Israel and Likud Party: [4]. has also represented Israel Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback He has also trained Israeli government officials for media appearances. http://www.prweekus.com/israel-branding-effort-aims-to-humanize-nations-image/article/56167/ Appreciate your interest and commentary. greenbay1313 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Current source eleven,, clearly states that Torossian himself is a supporter of Israel, and it clearly distinguishes his work as a promoter from his independent actions/opinions. Furthermore, the Post article you yourself point to says, "'I aspired, and still do aspire, to help the Jewish community in any way I can, whether spiritual or material,' he says", where "he" is Torossian. Thus, it seems abundantly clear to me that Torossian is "an active supporter of Israeli causes". Your third point looks potentially relevant, I may raise it on the talk page. As for his work in the government, the jewishweek source doesn't say he worked for them, it just quotes him (with no rationale as to why it is quoting him. And the last source not only may not be RS, it doesn't mention Torossian (if anywhere, it goes on the 5W page).  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the commentary. Supporting the Jewish community doesnt necessarily mean the Israel community. He seems to be a religious man, it could be with Rabbis or cultural we cant infer that is Israel, correct ? Can change it to Jewish, but is he noteable for that. Seperate, Israel commentary should certainly add the prominent clients rather than simple fringe and criticisim: This article states he has worked for Olmert & Netanyahu should be included: http://www.thejewishweek.com/features/confident_comeback (Ronn Torossian, the CEO of 5W Public Relations who has been a publicist for Netanyahu and Olmert...) This article states "he does boast a tight working relationship with the Christian Right, as well as many members of the Israeli political echelon, including the Tourism and Foreign ministries, members of Knesset and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat".. Jerusalem Mayor Barkat with Torossian: -  - Chairman of Kadima (liberal political party in Israel - in 5W and available on Youtube with Torossian: Thank you very much. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I also ask that you review The Jewish Week story where Torossian comments on Netanyahu - he didnt criticize him for restarting peace talks he criticized for giving back West Bank and said at end he would vote for him. Keep in context and the facts are misleading. read the story. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian is in Japan, so he might not get to things quickly (I do believe it is mid-afternoon there), plus of course all that is going on there. If you don't see a response within say 12 hours, please consider asking at the the help desk. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Source 11 in the current article explicitly Torossian (not 5WPR) with claims of support for Israel; that, coupled with the Post article, makes this clearly more than a support of a religion. As for the other part, I'm going to stick with just one issue, for right now.  The more you talk here, the more you remind me of a blocked sockpuppeteer, and the less inclined I am to read what you have to say.  One of that editor's problems (in case it wasn't you) was that despite being asked over and over again to work on one thing at a time, took every mention of help, every point of discussion, and piled on seventeen more different and unrelated issues.  The only reason I raised the one issue on Torossian's talk page as it did seem to be questionable based on WP:BLP to me, although it's a borderline issue that will require some editorial consensus.  That doesn't mean I'm going to take up every point you have.  While I routinely edit pages on topics which I know nothing about nor even care much about, I have such an active lack of care about a PR firm or its founder that it's unlikely that I'm going to crash into that article combing over every detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S., to Neutralhomer: one of the benefits of my job is that for long periods of time (including right now, probably up through the end of this week, maybe more), I get to sit around waiting for something to do. It's one of those jobs where I have days where I'm lucky to even get time for a lunch break, and others where I get to indulge in my Wikipedia addiction for most of the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough for now appreciate you spending the time. That issue is clear no one accused him personally of involvement at the time or since then. Belongs on company page not his lets stick to the 1 issue for now. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Qwyrxian:Now that is the kind of job I would like. :) Crazy one minute, relaxing the next. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I did anything to upset you. You stated that 2 mistakes were on the page would you mind correcting them as you stated you would. I didnt mean to upset you and wont bother you with any other issues but these are real concerns on a BLP and should be corrected immediately according to Wikipedia. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

greenbay1313 (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stated that that sentence seems to be a problem, although I'm not 100% certain it is. I asked on the article's talk page. So far people seem to favor taking it out, but I felt it could wait until at least 24 hours have passed.  I'll check back in on the talk page tomorrow.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: My user page
Re your message: No problem. =) He won't be bothering you anymore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why I hadn't removed P-Z
FYI, slight method to that madness...I hadn't created sections on all the characters who start with P-Z.  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Scott Andrew Hutchins and the Oz characters
Goody. It appears that Scottandrewhutchins is willing to edit war to keep his precious list (while calling me a vandalizing deletionist, even though I’ve ADDED 32K to the article) and place spurious, unsigned vandalism templates on my page. What do you think of that?  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  18:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Purplebackpack86 hasn't contributed anything of value to the article that wasn't copy and pasted from other Wikipedia articles (many of which I wrote). I am not sure why you are allowing him to delete material en masse without a consensus to do so.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're display some ownership problems here. The amount of someone's contribution is not the factor we use to determine whether or not information is included in a given article--rather, a combination of policy/guidelines ad consensus sets that determination.  As for this information, to me, it clearly fails WP:NOT to have unexplained list items that are literally twice as long as explained items on the list. I'm also further concerned about Purplebackpack's implication that some of those on the list don't actually appear in the canonical books.  In any event, we can keep discussing on the talk page--the RfC will stay open for 30 days, and perhaps consensus will support inclusion.  Or, perhaps some of those should be included, with explanations, while others should not.  Let's keep the discussion going there.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Paravar
Firstly, and most importantly, I hope that you are still doing ok over there. Your own well-being remains a very significant concern to me.

And then to Paravar. You may or may not have noticed a recent demolition job by me on the talk page. It is an incomplete job due to snippet views etc but the person to whom I responded has not yet replied. It is early days still but if there is no response in, say, another week then do you think I might be able to add a comment along the lines of "can we say that this issue now done and dusted?". It is not the first time that it has been raised and it is the second time that I have myself explained the pros and cons, probably more thoroughly and "academically" than has occurred in any of the previous "tribal warfare" comments and rebuttals. I am sure that someone else could have done it better, but I've taken a decent stab at it, I feel.

I would like to knock this one on the head for six months or so as it is a repetitious debate and has so far achieved nothing of note in terms of adjusting the article content, the occasional edit warring from before my involvement excepted. Obviously, there is still no consensus as such and I am concerned that saying as I propose might therefore be seen as being taking ownership etc. But, equally, we all have better things to do than keep covering old ground. I would appreciate your thoughts. I am conscious that adding such a comment as I am thinking of might inflame the situation but simultaneously conscious that going round in circles is not productive. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me address first one statement of yours above, "I am sure that someone else could have done it better, but I've taken a decent stab at it, I feel." Are you kidding?  Your step by step assessment of the sources is ten times more work than almost anyone spends on WP dealing with issues of this type. I reviewed your comments, and while I am not going to duplicate your research, you seem to have clearly debunked the idea that the request was not based on reliable secondary sources as we mean them in Wikipedia.  I see two main conclusions from your great work, which I'm going to add on at the end.


 * This kind of issue will likely grow to be more of a problem over time, since one of the Wikimedia Foundation's biggest pushes right now is to significantly increase Indian involvement in and use of Wikimedia projects. As nice as it might be, I doubt that any type of solid analysis will ever make this rest for long, simply because people have a very strong emotional, spiritual, and mental investment in seeing their own group/ancestors in a certain light.  Furthermore, it's likely that any Paravar editing has likely heard stories of their castes "glorious past" since they were children, and oral tradition is a legitimate source of knowledge and identity.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not recognize that knowledge (I'd like it to, someday, but I doubt that will happen any time in the near future) as being relevant, and so conflict necessarily arises as people's deepest held beliefs about where knowledge comes from come into conflict with our "will to truth" (to turn put it in Foucauldian terms). The article's still on my watchlist, so I'll try to pay attention to any additions of "questionable" knowledge.  Hopefully we won't ever have to go so far as to hold an RfC or other dispute resolution process.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments: you saw the wood where I could only see trees. As far as oral history goes, well, I am probably less open-minded than you. If the oral history has been discussed in reliable, verifiable sources etc then I'd be all for it; but not just "this story has been told through the generations" as it would just lead to warring. My dad's bigger than your dad etc. As it happens, things such as traditional UK music and songs are discussed and, of course, form an important part of oral history, and I would image that the same discussion applies elsewhere in the world. Similarly, Sangam literature was traditionally for most people known of by the spoken word and has been discussed: the problem is that the discussions are rejected because people do not like the idea that "their dad" was actually wrong. - Sitush (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

WWSB
Hello Qwyrxian, I've been working my way through the state of Florida this evening and have encountered an editor who is claiming that I'm "deleting WWSB's history... that's outrageous! There is nothing wrong with having these names listed... it's WWSB's past". Could you please have a look at this article. thank you again for your time, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Q, being one of your talkpage stalkers, I seen this and took care of it. Policy backs up with Deconstructhis is doing and I told the anon that in a post on their talk page.  I will monitor the page and make sure no other problems arise. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 03:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutralhomer, I swear, you're 'everywhere' in "television land". :) Thanks you for keeping an eye open, it's appreciated.I believe I pretty much covered Florida tonight. In my opinion, in terms of a "per capita" way of looking at it, so far I think the state of Louisiana seemingly represents the record for inordinate numbers of this type of unreferenced BLP list attached to television station articles. I'm not quite exactly sure what to make of that. Florida was fairly heavy tonight as well, but it's a much larger state of course, with tons of stations. Oh well; onward. Thanks again for your eyes Neutralhomer and sorry for barging in Qwyrxian. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I try to be. :) I think there are more of those kinds of lists because Louisiana is a "starter" market state, with the exception of WWL-TV and WDSU-TV, people just "pass through" that state onto bigger and better things. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that you've taken care of it! I'll at WWSB to my watchlist, though.  If either of you run into other stations that seem to need closer watching, let me know and I'll add them, too. It's odd that I now have so many tv stations on my watchlist, given that I have basically no interest in any of them except to monitor the alumni lists; recently it's been irritating with all of the changes to logos; I feel like some of that must be wrong, but don't know enough to know which changes to revert, so I usually just ignore that.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

 * I'm particularly impressed by your thorough documentation, but the barnstar really reflects my gratitude for your rapid call for review. It's a real pleasure to be able to point to such thoughtful editing as an example of Wikipedia's work when people contact us with legitimate complaints about an article's quality. Thanks for making us all look more professional. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The work is probably going to take a while--it's fairly intricate stuff. I find I have to balance out my WP--some hard core, close-to-the-sources work, and some more mundane CE and/or vandal-whacking.  Plus, I've already found a few more references that may warrant adding, although I haven't looked at them in detail and I'm mostly waiting on those until later.  If there's anything else coming out of the OTRS that needs to be removed right away, of course please do so, as I'm a big believer in removing bad or potentially bad stuff immediately and then getting it back in only when it's fully sourced and meets all of our other rules.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

PAGE PROTECTION
Hello. Someone is vandalizing Tamil Kshatriya page. Can you please help me ?Rajkris (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please have a look on his refs. None of them support what he wrote. That's why i'm reverting his edits and try to put back the page to its initial version. He's just here for caste promotion, propaganda. This is not my case. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter--you still can't edit war.You must discuss the issue on the talk page. I don't have the time or energy today to look at the references (it's after midnight here), but I will try to look into it tomorrow.  In the meanwhile, go to the article's talk page, and discuss the issue.  Also it's absolutely not vandalism--have you read WP:VANDAL?   Qwyrxian (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry i just read carefully your message on my page. Eventhough it is not vandalism, he can't write based on fake refs, it is not normal.Rajkris (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fyi, this guy is also vandalizing my user page.Rajkris (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I saw that (that, by the way, is actual vandalism, and arguably a personal attack as well) and added it to your report for edit warring at the last minute; it will be up to an admin to decide if Konguboy should be blocked along with you. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok.Rajkris (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Konguboy has again put his POV without any disucssion. He's not all a person who is ready for any kind of discussion. Is it possible to fully protect this page and warn this user ? Rajkris (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

2 Articles - Pinto again
I'm not prepared to AGF on this - it's the banned sockfarmer or a meatpuppet of his, in my view. They are pasting exactly his usual spiel.

I therefore propose removing the entire section, including your response.

Removing your response is only because it would render it nonsensical otherwise. But I ought to ask - are you OK with me removing your response along with his "question" ? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have the evidence that it's a sock, yet--yes, the topic is exactly the same, but I don't see any of his usual behavioral or typographical "tells". Part of the point of my response is to get xem talking, to see if we can get enough evidence for a duck block. I have read of ANI and JW threads where legitimate new editors complain that we're too swift to apply WP:DUCK--just because someone's pushing the same agenda, doesn't automatically mean their the sock.  I mean, yeah, 90% likely, but let's be sure before we get heavy-handed with the hammer.  The other point is that I'd like something on the page stating explicitly to any new good faith editors who want to add similar material why it doesn't belong here.  If it becomes more clear that this is a sock, then I guess I can always pull out just my comments and rephrase them so that this point stays.  So, yes, if xe is DUCK blocked, then go ahead and remove the whole section including my comments, and I'll recover the info myself in a new section.  But I still think we need to be more sure than we can be now.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I agree - reading over your comment, I think your info is worth keeping in there in its present form; it's a good explanation of the problems with his approach. (And it's a waste of time for you to have to start refactoring it all to make it make sense standalone.) So, although I think it's more like 99% than 90%, I'll wait till he starts multi-posting again, before I start reverting madly :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the tells were in there too, or one of them was - I actually thought you made a subtle reference to it in your edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, this guy really is too hyper for me to keep up with in realtime. Yep, it's him. One of the previous (now blocked) socks also had the "have been away travelling and have forgotten all passwords from before" story. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He just crossed my duck threshold for some key wording choices, so I put a tag on his user page. User:Diannnaa appears to be actively editing right now, so I've dropped her a note. Do you happen to know which of his socks made the travel comment?  Knowing is half the battle, as they say....Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think it would take me quite some time to find it - it was in the period right at the end where he was creating four or more socks per day, plus of course the comments are spread round all over the target articles' talk pages plus other users' talk pages plus noticeboards. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. FYI, Diannaa just blocked xem as a sock of our favorite banned user.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Anna Frodesiak has just asked for a checkuser on Kevincory, so we shall see if our duck-hunting instincts were correct. I am about 99 % sure but this kind of thing gives me a tummy ache. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, my last edit there was incorrect then. Really it's so WP:DUCK that it doesn't need checkuser, in my opinion. Even if the CU comes back as completely unrelated - we know it's him. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is behavioural and stylistic evidence. Check-user will likely come up not-related as all his usual haunts have their IPs blocked. He is probly at the library or an internet cafe.


 * Would a genuine new user think to look at the talk page before they edit? How do we spot a genuine new user if one should happen to want to edit at Rabbi Pinto? I have no idea, as my spidey senses may be a little over taxed. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand why would a new user want to edit an article on a fairly obscure NYC rabbi as their first edits? Other similar articles often go unedited for long periods of time. I am going to go walk the dog. See you later. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There were a few key typographical/word choices that are stereotypical of Babasalichai (I've shared those w/you Diannaa by email so as to not reveal them on-wiki; Demiurge, send me an email if you want to know them). Of course, the choice of those two specific points to want to include was almost a giveaway by itself, but not technically damning. Another key behavior is the picking of a new editor who has recently made changes to the article and contacting them via talk to request the same info added (see User Talk:DGG and User Talk:IZAK).  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The dog walk was a good idea. My thought: Let's put an edit notice on Rabbi Pinto and its associated talk page. something like, "This article is being actively monitored for sock puppet activity due to recent problems with a banned user. If you are a new user, please post to the talk page and discuss your proposed edits before proceeding. Thanks." That way actual new editors will be alerted that something unusual has been going on, and the banned user would realise the level of scrutiny is quite high. What do you think? Would this help? -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the one who was a traveller. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'd use something like: "This article is monitored for sockpuppet activity due to recent problems with a banned user. If you are a new user, please consider posting to the talk page to discuss your proposed edits." I think we only need it on the article itself, not the talk page as well.


 * I'm reasonably confident that I'd be able to tell a new user from a new sockpuppet in this case, although as seen in my recent suspicions over an NYC IP that had edited some of the same articles as the sockfarmer, the endless stream of sockpuppets can sometimes lead to unwarranted suspicions.


 * Qwyrxian, please do email me your thoughts on sockfarmer typographical styles; I think I know what they are, but it's quite possible that you've seen some that I haven't seen, or vice versa. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not just indefinitely semi-protect the page? We do that for other targets of banned users, like for pages targeted by Bambifan101.  That way legit new users have to go to talk (which is where we want them), and any socks will have a little longer history that we can explore.
 * Demiurge1000: email on its way in a few minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indefinite semi-protection is certainly an option; pending changes was turned on, for the other rabbi article that the sockfarmer kept attacking. In a sense, the edit notice is a (much) weaker version of semi-protection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ray Comfort
Everything they do there is sourced and referenced. That it is POV is irrelevant as it is factual. Jwissick (t)  (c)  19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but absolutely not. From WP:EL: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."  That site does not have a substantial history, nor does it have a substantial number of editors (there's no exception to that because the subject is so narrow).  In the last 500 changes on the whole site, not a single piece of useful info was added to the site--rather, it's all spam accounts being created, and those same accounts being blocked and their pages deleted.
 * Regarding the POV issue: "Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." That page does not--its intention is to defame and damage the character and reputation of Comfort.  It does not provide a balanced opinion.  Note that I in no way support either Ray Comfort or his detractors. I do, however, support WP's exclusion of almost all External links, and that one must go.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sant Mat
Hello. I see user:Clandarkfire has also started a template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%27%27%272011_Sant_Mat_Scandal%27%27%27 presumably to try to spread this stuff further. Can this be deleted too? Rumiton (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Xe blanked it about an hour after creating it, so I requested it be speedily deleted (as a page blanked by its creator with no substantial involvement by other editors). The deleted template will stay on my watchlist, so I'll see it if xe recreates it.  If you see the user trying to add this unsourced info into some other articles, feel free to let me know and I'll watch them, too.  Of course, should xe ever actually provide reliable sources for any of those claims, then they may be able to be included.
 * As long as we're talking, I do want to mention one other thing: for one part of what you removed (the meditation part), your edit summary said "simran is secret and revealing it is a form of non respect". Note that this is not a valid reason to remove information from Wikipedia.  For instance, standard Muslim doctrine does not allow pictures of any living human being, and especially no pictures of Prophet Muhammad, but WP includes them nonetheless where they have encyclopedic value per WP:NOTCENSORED.  It's fine that the simran was removed, because it was entirely unsourced, but if a reliable source] is eventually provided for that information, it can and probably should stay.  Just thought you should know. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me, someone else deleted that stuff. I agree with you. This is yet another fight in which I do not have a dog. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, sorry...I just assumed you were the other involved editor. I'll point out to them on their talk page the discussion here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one removing the simran. Please that's a secret mantra! Wikipedia is an enciclopedy but there are some moral limits whe should apply. Simran is given inside initiation and should be kept secret. Wikipedia should not be the substitute of a Guru and this is not the purpose of wikipedia. Simran is one of the private things between Master and disciple, just as the content of a confession in a church. Offending people who read the article is not the purpose of the article, i think. There no exist a text by a Sant Mat Master in which there is the simran. And the only reliable source for a mantra given by a Master in initiation is the Master himself. Other people can reveal it just to be critic or "vandalistic" against Sant Mat. Revealing simran IS a vandalistic attack against Sant Mat, so it can't be included in wikipedia. That's my opinion. --GurDass (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, since the info was unsourced, the simran cannot go into the article. If it is ever verified by a reliable source (unlikely but possible), then it can and probably should go into the article (again, just like we put in pictures of Muhammad even though Muslims find it very offensive).  Don't worry about it now--as you state, it's highly unlikely that a reliable source will ever be found, so it's not really relevant.  I will continue to assist removal of any unsourced material on the article, however.  Qwyrxian (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for your answer, but just *hoping* that no reliable sources will come it's very sad. And the example of the picture of Muhammad makes me sad too. The scope of an enciclopedy is to give informations, yes, but in a positive way. People needs enciclopedies to have sources of knowing. In my opinion of an ideal article about Muhammad it should say that because of his pictures are considered offensive for lots of people, the pictures are visible clicking on some link. So people can choose what to see and have not the risk to be offended just searching the name of somebody. A muslim that sees the image of his prophet just feels offended, leaves the page, and wikipedia looses is purpose to be a souce of informationf for him. In google too there is a "safe search" for images. If you really want, you see things that can offend. Or, in an article about some people murdered, we should put photos of corpses badly damaged... Wikipedia can become a new rotten.com just because if there is some source somebody can use it? I know that it's not the same thing, but the key is not hurting people's sensibility.--GurDass (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. i've just searched for the Muhammad page and there is not a picture of his face, just some very little miniature of some very ancient art. It seems very respectful of muslims. If somebody puts this picture what happens? Just by typing references and newspaper title and number we can use this image? --GurDass (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the talk page history, you would see that nearly every day, sometimes multiple times a day, a Muslim person posts to tell us that any images of Muhammad are extremely disrespectful and offensive. Sometimes they ask that they be removed, sometimes they demand it. Neither course results in the being removed.  It's actually a complex issue that I myself question, but the long-standing consensus of the community has long been that we don't worry about offending people in either words or text (this is encapsulated in the policy WP:NOTCENSORED).  The basic line of thinking is that almost anything we write could be offensive--for instance, some people find any discussion of anything even slightly sexual to be offensive; others don't think that we should have graphic descriptions of pictures of violence for the sake of children; and others find it offensive that we treat evolution as a scientific fact. Our policy is that as long as the info we are providing is relevant to subject matter, potential offensiveness doesn't matter.  We don't (aren't supposed to) post pictures just to titillate, but we do include graphic, sexual, and religiously offensive material in our articles.
 * As a side note on the simran, should a published text become available, there is still one more tool in your defense, which I would support: we probably shouldn't include the full text of it, simply because that's not what we are supposed to do for any information. Rather, we provide only encyclopedic summaries of reliable sources, not verbatim quotes from primary texts.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * this is a good point, and i can add: writing simran in wikipedia is not, in my opinion, an enciclopedic information. It's useless as an information, if somebody wants initiation (that includes simran) he can just take it by a competent Guru. Just typing it is merely a curiosity. Just like putting the full text of a marriage ceremony, is useless also in an article about the meaning of a marriage. Clandarkfire put the simran obviously to critic and offend Sant Mat devotees because he knows that it's an offense. This scope is very clear. --GurDass (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Open wikis in EL

 * Hi. I've started a discussion on the EL policy regarding open wikis here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

watergate article edit request
Hi - the talk page of Watergate_scandal has been edit-protected. While I understand the edit-protection of the main article, edit-protecting the talk page seems a bit extreme. (I'm putting this on your talk page because you have edited the Watergate article.).

Anyway, I wanted to ask for an improvement to the section "Saturday Night Massacre", 2nd paragraph, which currently reads: "Nixon was compelled, however, to allow the appointment of a new special prosecutor". That seems like an important point, so explaining how/why/by who he was compelled seems important. If you could copy this over to the talk page I'd be grateful. 120.154.15.113 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you might be mistaken, or experiencing a technical bug. Neither Watergate scandal nor Talk:Watergate scandal are protected at all.  I just logged out and was able to open the editing window on both.  Watergate scandal was last protected in October 2010, but that expired in January 2011.  Talk:Watergate scandal has never been protected--we generally don't semi-protect talk pages, because it would make it impossible for non-confirmed editors to have any say (I think they are occassionally temporarily semi-protected, but not long term).  Kindly try again and let me know if it's still not working; if it's not, try editing some other page and see if that's also failing. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, OK. I can edit your page and numerous others, but not the Watergate articles. Nevermind, it might be a Google Chrome thing. Thanks for replying. 120.154.15.113 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome Try WP:Bypassing your cache in case the problem is related to some persistence of older protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam
Hi, i forgot to read all the rules just read simple rules and went ahead sorry about that. Actually i want to show the difference of verses translation taken from quran by qouting both but now i have read rules i want little help, can you tell me how i write verses to contest the already written verses so that they are objectivly showing that their are differences and i am pointing it objectively because i cannot find such comparison by other sources but the sources of these verses can be shown but there are no comparisons IntikhabNova (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your last part is the key. If there are no "other sources" that compare them directly, it is forbidden by Wikipedia policy for you to compare them. All information on Wikipedia must come from other, reliable sources.  Putting in your own comparison of the two verses is called original research, which is specifically not allowed per Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR).  Note that, for Wikipedia purposes, the Qur'an is considered a primary source, so it doesn't count here, because primary sources can only be used for completely uncontentious facts; religious scripture (from any religion) always requires interpretation, because different groups and people interpret it very differently.  Interpretation is another word for original research.  In particular, in the info you added, you said, "Only Yusuf Ali is writing with brackets why not everyone else because he is showing something which do not exist".  That is a claim which definitely requires a source--you need evidence to show that Yusuf Ali is the only one who writes the text in the way you indicate.
 * Once you find a source, let me know, and I'll be glad to help you format the information and get the right tone to try to add it to the article. You may want to take a look at the policies linked in the previous paragraph to help you know what a reliable source and primary source are.  Qwyrxian (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But what if i only want to show it's exact meaning rather than interpreted meaning as it has been done there, why haven't you or anyone else has pointed it out the subjective meaning and rectified it from the same source you are getting that verse there are two other translations which don't even mention jesus and in reality the arabic text also don't mention him at all then why the biased version is used and not the objective version is not used. Is it because it justifies the topic. I question the source of Yusuf Ali's meaning and do not consider it reliable. I ask that instead of that marmaduke pickthall's version should be used because they are exact meaning but not interpretation and yusuf ali is interpreting quran in his own way by using brackets thus you are qouting someone subjective rather than objective IntikhabNova (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Apologies, and I don't know if you'll accept this, but there is no such thing as an "exact meaning".  All meaning, for all texts, is interpreted.  Every time we read every text, we always interpret it through our own minds, based on our experiences, groups, etc.  This is why, for example, religious scholars (Muslim, Christian, whatever) always argue about "what a verse really means".   There is no such thing as an objective understanding of what a piece of text means.
 * Now, having said that, that doesn't mean that we should choose the Ali translation instead of the Pickthall translation. We can certainly argue about which one is better, and attempt to persuade one another to switch.  That will be an argument, and there is no objective answer, but it is an argument worth having.  I have no idea why, on that article, quotes are used from the Ali rather than from Pickthall. In cases like this, the appropriate step is to start a conversation on the article's talk page.  I have just done so--you can see the conversation at Talk:Jesus in Islam.  Let's see what other editors think about the issue; hopefully, some of them can provide more helpful input than me.
 * Finally, I want to say that I'm glad we're discussing this now, rather than you just trying to reinsert the info. This is exactly our best practices on Wikipedia--when editors disagree about what to write, we discuss it on user and article talk pages.  Hopefully we can come to a clearer understanding of the issue, and then make changes to the article if necessary.  Thank you very much for participating in this discussion.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you for that, but I foolishly still replaced the verses to pickthall but not added anything else there only verses. Sorry about that :| — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntikhabNova (talk • contribs)


 * Yeah, I realized that afterward; your new addition looked a little better since you didn't comment on the information. I think you may have quoted too much, as we generally don't want to overquote any primary source, but I'll see what others think.  Hopefully someone else will comment on the talk page discussion, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the reason I overqouted is that the mentioning of jesus and Allah remain different as most people say that in verse 61 jesus is speaking where as in reality Allah is talking about Himself, before and after that verse jesus is qouted by Allah directly. I have read Quran completely and jesus's return is only mentioned on the hour and/or day of resurrection and no where else it is mentioned of jesus's return other than hour and/or day of resurrection. I am hoping to get a good response IntikhabNova (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

question
Hello Qwyrxian, would you like to have a shot at answering this editor's question? :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Adversary (band)
I think there should be an article named Adversary(band). They exist you know. 72.70.203.28 (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay...do they meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for bands? That is, have they been covered by multiple independent, reliable sources?  Or have they had a song or album appear in a Billboard top 100 chart?  Or something else similar?  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You and User: Rajkris one and the same?
Rajkris is zealously defended by you!?! Wiki lobby? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konguboy (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never edited under any other usernames, and have only edited as an IP by mistake when I forgot to log in, so, no, I'm not Rajkris. As for defending him, I'm not. You may recall that I had both of you blocked for edit warring.  Regarding the article, I'm not defending him, but I am defending his edits.  The information that you were seeking to add isn't in the source.  Only information verified by reliable sources may be added to Wikipedia if that information is at all challengable.  The terms you are seeking to add aren't even in the source.  As far as I can tell, you're trying to say that two different groups (the Kshatriya and Mutharaja) are the same people; however, neither you nor Rajananand456 have presented any evidence to support this claim.  If you present such evidence in reliable sources, I will be more than happy to figure out how to include the information in the article. Please understand that not only do I not care about the subject matter of this article in any way (in the sense that I have no connection to the countries or ethnic groups involved), I literally know nothing about it other than what appears in the sources the lot of you are presenting.  I only care about the article following Wikipedia's principles of neutrality and verifiability. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A second personal abuse report
Hi. Wtshymanski was insulted by this IP 85.17.146.116. You already warned him about another insult here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:85.17.146.116 --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually "warned" the IP after that insult occurred...the IP decided to attack-bomb a half dozen different talk pages. As soon as I left the message, though, and checked the user's contributions for other attacks, I saw that the IP address was blocked for 6 months as an open proxy.  (You can see it if you look at the user's contribution list.  Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Got time to review some comments?
I've just had some dealings with what turns out to be an autistic editor, although I did not realise this until he mentioned his savant abilities (at which point I looked at his user page). Bearing in mind what I now know, I'm just slightly troubled that I may be handling the situation badly. If you have a moment then I'd be grateful if you could just check over User_talk:Gilgamesh & let me know your thoughts. Reason: I trust your common sense! - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can respond to xyr talk page. I started, but I want to think over exactly what to say.  I think xe can handle adding the reflist part, as that's just a standard, always the same edit.  Formatting the refs, though, is a bit trickier;  I'm initially tempted to say that xe doesn't need to worry about that, as lots of people just add bare URLs.  At least there's something that that can be worked with at a later date.  But it's a borderline issue, so I want to think about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No rush. It was only after my second comment that I checked his user page. For some reason the full implication of "savant" didn't sink in until that point, although it should have done because as I understand it most savants are autistic to some degree or another. I'm thankful that I included the offer to provide a cut-and-paste version of the cite in the circumstances that I subsequently came to appreciate. Nonetheless, it needs to be treated with sensitivity & so your thoughts are appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The more I think about it, the more I think that the bare url issue just doesn't matter much. Tons of editors do it, and it's something that gnomes can fix relatively easily.  It might be worth explaining how to use the citation tool in the advanced editing window, but even that isn't all that important.  The reflist thing is key though--without it, the article gets all messed up and the refs xe added don't even appear.  I think your comments so far were basically sensitive, if a bit complex.  The best is probably to explain that the importance of the reflist, and, using nowiki, show exactly how it would look on a real page.  Gilgamesh may be autistic, but looking at his user page and edits, xe looks to be extremely high functioning, which makes xem at least aware of the difficulties in communication he has.  My guess is that if you present him with a kind but technical explanation of what he needs to do, and focus on the one specific problem, that xe'll both get it and accept it.  I started typing something on xyr page, but then realized that you might prefer to continue bearing the news yourself.  But I don't mind leaving it either.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Might be better coming from you because it would also reinforce the point, although xer response to my initial msg makes me think that it is accepted but may not happen. Also, I could then see what a less complex explanation looks like! I dislike bare links, mainly because of experiences trying to fix deadlinks during the recent Drive, but the chances of a dictionary going dead any time soon are slim, I guess. Grateful, as always, for your time. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Seen your comment over there & now have a better understanding of what you meant, although I'm still happy to provide the cite proformatted if that's what xe would prefer. It is being used on a lot of pages, so copy/paste might make it as simply to drop in there as a reflist etc. Anyway, that's up to the contributor. I need to learn to break down my explanations a little more: sometimes I do, more often I do not. -

of course this guy just continues to totally ignore any input......
It's like this guy just doesn't "hear" us. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite being advised not to, the adding apostrophes to decades thing contrary to WP:DECADE is continuing on like clockwork. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There also appears to be some IP hopping going on here as well. Exactly the same sorts of edits, both appear to be emanating from Jacksonville Florida. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, last "observation". :) I've reviewed quite a few of these edits now and to tell you the truth, in those instances where they're doing things like appropriately capitalizing stuff, it's fine. But there are still difficulties. I've noticed contradictions in the unreferenced material being added as you mentioned earlier as well; that makes me wonder about sourcing. There's also this whole thing with refusing to communicate with other editors when they're attempting to talk to you, while simultaneously continuing to engage in editing practices that are being objected to. Not good. As someone pointed out the other day, brute force should be discouraged. I'm thinking that a short term block may be required to get their attention. The most frustrating thing about all of this; apart from the lack of communication, is the fact that it would be so easy for them to provide some bibliographical context for us; if in fact they do have a source, any source. If they do, that's great. If they don't, because of things like those contradictions, I vote thumbs down. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that I don't think the capitalization is correct. I can't find the station I'm specifically thinking of, but, in one instance, the Capitalization on every other slogan was something like "Proud to be Channel 8", and then on the one "national" slogan, they changed it to "Proud To Be Channel 8".  The second capitalization is not only non-standard, but it doesn't make sense that only 1 of the slogans would use that capitalization method.
 * Blocking isn't going to help if they're IP hopping, unless they're on a narrow range that can be range-blocked. The problem is that we've brought this to ANI and gotten no helpful response.  I'll look at the newer batch and see what I think we should do; we can't afford to spend our time every single day reverting questionable, dubious edits.  The alternative, of course, is to just ignore all of them...Lord knows practically nothing else on the TV station pages is sourced, so it's a little unfair of us to enforce that that one editor use sources.  We can, though, revert all improper dating, and I think we might be able to get a block for disruptive editing counter to MOS on that one narrow point.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just reported the IP to AIV...let's see what happens.  They could easily decline it as not actually vandalism.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And I was told to take it to AN/I, which is, in fact, the correct decision. I'll think about whether or not I want to bother with that...you know the only reason I ever started editing TV station pages in the first place was probably because of some routine vandalism patrolling, which is what led be to the issue about non-notable former staff.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a thread at ANI on this just a few days ago. It archived already and it is at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686. -- Diannaa (Talk) 03:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is it basically petered out; there was indications that this was possibly issue of sockpuppetry, but no certainty (I'm not familiar with either master). But I guess I have no choice but to go back there. Before I do, let me see if I can get a list of addresses possibly being used.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is just so much going on all the time that these TV station articles do not strike anyone as a high priority set of articles. We need more admins. If you can collect a large-ish number of IPs it might be possible to sort them out into a few tight range blocks. See you tomorrow, -- Diannaa (Talk) 04:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the previous AN/I discussion and I'm having a difficult time buying into why, minimally, this isn't simply being treated as a straight forward case of disruptive editing, I'm speaking specifically about and . What's the present count all-told in terms of the number of editors who have tried to even get this editor(s) to simply respond and failed in the attempt? A half dozen? Even leaving aside for a moment whether or not this is a sock in action; isn't it reasonable to expect that if an editor decides to continue to add material to the encyclopedia; whether it's referenced or not, and a half dozen other editors are asking for ANY form of discussion and being totally ignored that we need to do something to get that editors attention? Maybe they do have reliable source for all of this material; maybe they don't. One thing for sure; we'll have a difficult time making a determination about anything if they simply ignore other editors completely and carry on like the rest of us don't exist. Also; I'm not buying the argument implied in the AN/I that somehow we should abandon policy, guidelines and consensus for a particular type of article, just because a lot of articles in that particular class are full of crap. Lots of the edits that this editor is making are unreferenced statistical changes; since when have we abandoned the principle that those kind of potentially insidious alterations can be passed over in the hope that 'one day' maybe one of us will come across a reliable source to support them? In my opinion that's just lazy dereliction, and if that's the kind of attitude we continue to hold when it comes to 'certain types' of article subjects, we get the crappy encyclopedia we deserve. I say, if six editors want a discussion about sourcing with a single other editor and that editor ignores all attempts at communication and continues to add unreferenced material for months on end; it's time to put a 'halting mechanism' in place.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've opened up a new section on WP:ANI at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Deconstructhis, if you know of any more IPs that should be added, please do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My time is looking a little restrictive today Qwyrxian, but I'll have a look around. Thanks for re-launching that ANI, it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.....this looks kind of interesting, in terms of a "source" for this material. I think the second to last line; right above the date, at the top of the page may be telling here: "Special thanks to a number of individuals who have helped to provide many of the titles, broadcast times, affiliation switches, etc". Is it possible that what we're looking at in these edits is actually second hand original research being retrieved and inserted into articles by a non-communicative anonymous IP from a Tripod site? Perhaps we'll never know. :)  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the ANI thread is attracting no comments whatsoever. It's not just these radio station edits either, you know. Sometimes while using Huggle I will see someone make a large number of unsourced changes to articles about airports, or TV shows, or the names of voice actors on cartoons. And don't even get me started about India. How do we block someone for making unsourced changes to an unsourced article? -- Diannaa  (Talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh...Indian articles, especially those about tiny villages or sub-castes, are always a difficult topic to wade into. It's awkward trying to sort out an edit war between two people arguing about whether or not 1500 year old Religious Poem X establishes that at some time in ancient history Tribe Y were "warriors" or "rulers".  Especially difficult since its often nearly impossible to determine the reliability of the sources (themselves routinely more than 100 years old).  That, and the village articles that talk about how wonderful the village is and provide a detailed description of all of the "important" people who have ever lived there...I know that the foundation is making a big push to expand our user base in and coverage of India.  I wonder how much they've thought about handling the fact that Oral History really has a lot of legitimate "reliability" in many parts of India, and how much that conflicts with our (arbitrary and culturally-centric) rules on sources.  Heck, even handling the reliability of newspaper reports can be challenging, since many current Indian newspapers read a lot like older US/UK newspapers, when the reporters were legitimately allowed to integrate their own analysis, interpretations, and opinions right into the "regular" stories.  I wonder if we'll actually be able to adapt our principles, or if we're going to try to take a "Our way or the highway" approach.  An interesting issue for the somewhat near future. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the answer to the literature issue in the WP world is as per Paravar: if it is Sangam literature etc then it is not reliable, period. However, as you say, how well that principle will hold up as more of the subcontinent appear here is debatable. As far as radio/TV stations go, I struggle to see how many of them even meet GNG but presume that somewhere in the past a consensus emerged, rather like the daft one that permits every high school (another set of articles that consume more editorial time than the benefit that they provide). - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually ran face-first into the TV station consensus a week ago, since I didn't know it existed. Their SNG is located on WP:Notability (media), so I didn't notice it. Basically, the rule for the US is that any FCC licensed station which broadcasts at least some original programming is considered to be default notable.

Back on the original topic (the IP editor w/o sources)...we're about 13 hours away from archival again. I guess it just doesn't matter to those currently active...ah well. I guess we can wait and see if Neutralhomer goes forward with the "nuclear option", and, if not, go figure out a path forward from there. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)