User talk:Qwyrxian

A question for you

Regarding the BRD-breaking dispute, do you remember I have contested Lvhis' block, wrote any lies about people, or tried to edit-war? I don't recall ever doing that, but my memory can be faulty. Here's the a thread where that allegation was raised by some person. Since you are an involved party, your opinion on this may be valuable. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of any answer I could give you that would help you. My (now deleted) description of the timeline of events regarding Tenmei's BRD breaking is fundamentally different from yours; I leave it up to you (and Arbcom) what is causing that difference. Also, using a simple page search, I can't find any place where you are accused of lying (I searched the Evidence, Workshop, and main case pages along with their assorted talk pages, searching for the terms " lies" and " lie " and " lied" and "lying", and the only instead where I find that word being used is when you accuse others of lying. I also re-read the specific thread you linked to, and, while Magog accuses you of wikilawyering, trolling, indirect personal attacks, xe never accuses you of lying or edit-warring. In his subpage, Magog never accuses you of contesting Lvhis's block. So, not sure what you're complaining about, unless some other term was used that I can't find. I also don't recall anyone accusing you of edit-warring in the Arb Case pages either, and don't see anything. So, maybe your faulty memory isn't of the events from a month ago, but of what you think people are accusing you of at the arbitration case. 01:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

EotR did say that Lvhis should not have been blocked, and Tenmei should have [20]. She never claimed that Lvhis didn't break BRD, and Tenmei did. The fact that Bobthefish2 has parroted these claims endless shows only he has taken the low road (i.e., lying, deception, trolling) to winning this edit war. - Magog the Ogre

Just like all your personal attacks aren't direct, no, you just managed to imply it... - Magog the Ogre, with regards to whether or not I contested Lvhis' BRD-induced block

I suppose my memory is faulty indeed. Anyway... I get where you stand and your response is not a surprise. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I did miss that paranthetical. Apologies. We'll see in the end what Arbcom thinks of the mess; debating it amongst ourselves is hardly likely to accomplish anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I know... we are such a messy bunch to deal with ;-) Just wait till someone to quote this as a passive-aggressive smiley --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add that: These kinds of debates can be helpful in revealing the motivations of involved parties and the strength of their justifications, although I try not to overdo it. Well, at least I learned that some people have been treating imagined acts of other people as truth. That'd at least convince myself that I am not really being unfair with the direction I am taking. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to change parts of "Analysis of Evidence" over the next few days. If you would like to modify your responses, please feel free. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the point about autism, since your explanation seems to add up. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer you didn't, but I guess I'll just have to go in and re-explain what you did, given that it's a great example of your poor behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Which one is a great example again? Autism? If so, I'd encourage you add a new section and explain why it is a great example of poor behaviour. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the fact that you cited Feezo's RfA support and not mine. As far as I know, I gave you some pretty glowing reviews! :-( --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I picked Feezo's comment because he's both "involved" and "neutral", but can't (as far as I know) actually "speak" in the Arbitration in any significant way degree; I felt it provided a better "counter" to STSC than any random praise (since it's clearly related), or even than praise from you or Tenmei, since STSC is in part alleging some bizarre plot regarding the differential between how I treated his comments and yours/Tenmei's/Lvhis's. Of course, if you still think you were right in your !vote (i.e., if you still think I deserve adminship despite our disagreements), you're certainly welcome to raise them as a defense against STSC's calls to have me de-sysopped. It's probably not really all that important, though, since I sincerely doubt that will actually be something ArbCom considers, but one never knows. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really seriously considered the option of proposing a de-sysop for anyone other than Magog, since admins are as difficult to fire as tenured employees. However, I don't think STSC's allegations about you are bizarre. I've already shown how you've given a free pass to just about everyone who was on the same side on the conflict as you (except for Tenmei). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we have a disagreement [1] about the concept of OR being in a discussion, can you help us? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You weren't being very insightful there. I am disappointed. :/ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My reasons for not being insightful, though, were clearly explained. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Construing that as a conspiracy is not very nice. It was just a simple request of commentary. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Need your advice.

Kindly look into Economy section images quantity, which are forcibly inserted in the section, beyond that the editor is un necessarily insisting to maintain that size of images, please see his arguments here, here and here. I need your advice.

Secondly, I believe that this talk is a sock puppet of recently blocked User:Dragonbooster4, whose tone and insisting attitude for adding image is similar. And by chance if he is hot a sock puppet then he should first learn the articles styles and do's and dont's then he/she may approach for editing. Though without reading the archived discussions on the article talk page, he is insisting to add the images, were as previously on the talk page it came to consensus among the editors that they shall not add more than 1 or 2 images per section and as a new user he need to read and implement previous consensus.

though, even after advising , this editor is not refraining from destructive activities and unnecessary involving others in edit war. Kindly advice, regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started a sockpuppet investigation on Eeeanadu; I'll be shocked if it's not the same person; note that this person has been socking for a long time, and has had several dozen sockpuppets (plus sometimes edits as an IP). Assuming I'm right, he'll be blocked; at that point, just roll back all of the edits. Then, if he comes back (as he probably will), we'll rinse and repeat. If I'm wrong, then I'll help deal with the issue directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response , Well, you might have noticed that, the blocked sock had repeatedly accused me as disruptive and aggressive user. was my approach to you regarding this issue is aggressive? rather than involving in edit war. if I had not brought the issue upto you he might have spoiled the article again. the hardwork and lot of researched information would have been again spoiled. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider anything that sock says as relevant or accurate. It is abundantly clear that xe simply wants to control articles and make them read only the way xe wants them to read. If you spot another new editor who seems similar (pay close attention to the way they talk on the talk page or in edit summaries), let me know and I'll re-open the SPI. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste groups of India

See the recent edit history of Reddy ... Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

looks like the beginnings of an edit war to me. Since you've noticed the problem, the best thing to do is to go to the article's talk page and discuss it. No one has actually gotten up to 3RR, much less crossed it yet, so it's alright on that regard (although the random edit by a random IP in the middle does worry me). I'll put the article on my watch list and see if it gets worth. But one thing worth remembering is that, even if you're sure you are right, rather than edit war to keep the article the way you want it, go to talk and discuss the issue; or, at a bare minimum, discuss it at the same time as you make your 1st or 2nd revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

tp comment

thanks for the opportunity--I've been meaning to say this. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates

I meant to put it on the user page --ChristianandJericho 00:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Finale (Seinfeld episode).

I thought of asking your expert opinion. Is it good having qoutes even incidental ones or would it be better to put it in Wikiquote (if that's the name?). The reason I find it so controversial is the line Elaine says "I've always..." that also appears on Elaine Benes article and Jerry Seinfeld (character) article. People, believe it or not, did not web reference the script that has it. For some reason the "L" in "I've always l..." is hard to reconcile. Also the guy that has trouble with ownership just accept "I've always l..." without any second thoughts. I did my research and felt it would be better to take it out altogether because it's not working as the story intended.

That's too much to swallow. Anyway, if I'm doing like an article for example storytelling, is it better not to have the "quotes" as part of the article or is there a way to put in quotes without any trouble. Any advice would be good advice and since your a good editor, it will help with my learning experience. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean quotes from the show, or from independent sources? If you mean the former, they don't belong here except in extremely special cases; for example, a famous catch-phrase of a character could be included (though probably on the character page, if there is one). If you mean the latter, then yes, we can include it, although it's always an editorial decision whether to use a direct quote or just a paraphrase/summary. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Good day, Hi, kindly forget the past need your help, for the article Hyderabad, India . please see talk page of the same article or here. Regards. Omer123hussain (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Senkaku

Please consider what I have written here at "Vested toxic warriors". Perhaps you will want to comment? --Tenmei (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator NewYorkBrad has explicitly stated that they do not need any more information from us, so no, I do not wish to comment any more on the arbitration evidence or proceedings, unless they specifically ask us to. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Misessus Block

While this is not a normal block appeal procedure, I ask that you lift or modify the block on Misessus. I've deleted his comment on the AS talk page and put in my 2 ¥ on his talk page. (Also, I've deleted another user's personal comments IAW WP:TPOC). These Economics editors are like a herd of cats, but I enjoy my parlay with them. If you can, please help me out. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a message at User Talk:Misessus#September 2011. That way it can be seen by Misessus, along with any other admins who want to act on the case as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And to see how worked up these discussions can really get, see Fear the Boom and Bust. --S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all unsurprisingly, Misessus blanked the block notice and followup message, and simply left his declaration of how terrible Wikipedia is. I'm not going to respond, as there's no reason to inflame the situation. Misessus is welcome to that opinion (although, in my opinion, it's pure sour grapes because the article doesn't reflect his belief that the Austrian School is not only the "best" economic school, but, in fact, the only one with any validity and everyone who has any degree of intelligence already knows that). However, Misessus is not welcome to also attempt to edit Wikipedia while holding such a hostile opinion to our fundamental project goals. I sincerely hope that this time xe will actually retire, rather than forcing us to go through incremental blocking and banning. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned a talk page msg of yours at ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MangoWong_.26_poor_policy_interpretation:_can_someone_have_a_word.2C_please. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done

I think someone should thank you being so vigilant at the Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture page. They just keep trying and trying! I'm watching too so don't feel it is all on you. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that the AfD is finished, we may want to even consider requesting indefinite semi-protection. Lots of lists like this, that have vague inclusion criteria, are semi-protected indefinitely simply because new users don't understand that we are different from TVTropes (or other similar sites), and that we only want verified entries, even in cases where it seems "obvious". I can make a request if the problems don't taper off (I'm too involved to take an admin action on the article myself, now). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I think I might make the request myself as yet another IP editor tried with Cthulhu this morning. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mallars / Devendra Kula Vellalar

why are so keen in deleting all the stuffs. The notable names given are true to my knowledge & the whole community knows who are they. And should better know that these notable peoples have done so much for the community. There are so many reference to prove that they are from Mallar community only. We also don't have any interest in including other people in our list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundarapandian1978 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are references, then they can be included. If there are no references, then they cannot. It's that simple. As lkong as you add a source, you may include them. My only concern is that information in Wikipedia be verified, especially information about living people. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ra.One page

Thank you so much for turning the page to protected. It was so tiring to undo vandalism and re-edit content of it all the time. :) --Meryam90 (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. RFPP has been a bit backed up the last few days, wish it was getting taken care of faster. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfArb/Senkaku

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."

It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.

A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. --Tenmei (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Solar cell panel manufacturing controversy

Fine. Move them where they go: Solar cell manufacturing controversiesSolar panel manufacturing controversies . Include this one:

• Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006 for four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. They that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies.

--Pawyilee (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC) --editedPawyilee (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm...that may belong in the article somewhere...but why is that a controversy? 90% reduction in pollutants for solar cells seems like a good thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld article again.

I'm very sorry for what I did. I've gone too far for now and I promise I won't do it again. As for the Jacopo/Jacobo, I forgotten how to do the DVD reference so sorry about that. I'll take a few days to clear myself up. I remembered the last time I went into the edit war when I first signed up and didn't know what to expect because I do have difficulty keeping my cool. This is a close second so I'll restrain myself for now. If you personally want the minor character list to stay the way it is, I won't object but I hope Hearfourwesique will come to the table to resolve this issue if I want to put my mind at ease. As long as this issue is not left unresolved he shouldn't keep me waiting forever at least for a message to come.

Sorry I got you involved in this. I better cool down before it gets anymore worse ok? Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you won't work with Hearfourwesique, then you have to walk away from the article, permanently. No one is allowed to just say "I want to work on this article, but I refuse to collaborate with that other major contributor". So, what you should do is exactly what you've suggested: walk away from Wikipedia a few days. Come back rested and cool. Then we can finish hashing out the criteria for what characters should be included in the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I made few corrections for the sources of Hyderabad, India article, hope you might have noticed those.Need your advice for further actions. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pashtun People.

The edit I made was totally legit. It is verifiable and referenced from a reliable source. A select few people see a problem with it because of the sensitive nature of some, but like I said everything is verifiable. Nothing I wrote was even the slightest bit biased. Everything was from a neutral point of view straight from the research. Other editors even contributed by cleaning up the citing and making the statements even more neutral so as not to offend. There just seems to be a select few people that don't want others to know the truth about certain cultural practices. I live in the region and can attest to it, but I don't need to because everything I have mentioned is backed up by researched and is cited and referenced. My edit just keeps getting reverted because someone else doesn't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.11.3 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not the edit is reasonable. I know it wasn't vandalism, and that your edit was made in good faith, and that you included at least something that may be a valid reference (again, I didn't look into the details), so there was nothing inherently wrong with your addition. But I also know that two different people disagreed with you, so it's now time for you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you can't gain consensus yourself on the talk page, you can take the process through dispute resolution. There are ways to ask for additional opinions, noticeboards that can help determine issues of neutrality and reliable sourcing, etc. If you need help with any of that, I will provide it. What you cannot do is simply try to force the info in yourself. If you do that, you'll end up blocked (or, if your IP is dynamic, the page will be semi-protected), and that doesn't get you anywhere. Take it to talk, discuss it, and see what happens. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Other people contributed to my original edit. Then some random person comes along and reverts it. It's the same guy that keeps doing it.

Two different people undid it. Even if there are others supporting, that just makes it worse--then we're up to a big huge edit war. Policy says that any time you have a bunch of people disagreeing, you need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. That's all I'm suggesting--again, I have no opinion about whether your edit is right or wrong (and, even if I did, that wouldn't change anything, because admins don't decide content). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I provided more sources on the articles talk page. It will be interesting to see these guys try to disprove factual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.11.3 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the nuisance contributor

Hi Qwyrxian, many thanks for blocking the nuisance contributor, 82.234.207.120. About time something was done about complete time-wasting on the ref desk. Advise/ encourage even stronger responses in future, It's been emotional (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I strongly suspect the user is not going away (given how long they've been at it), and 1 week is more likely to fuel their trolling desires than make it stop, so let me know if it restarts. I don't want to add the Reference desk to my watch list just to watch for this one person, so I'll rely on regulars to keep me informed (I will watchlist his talk page, though). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Caste Articles

You be cool brah. Caste articles be messy. Wish u luck. U seem to be neutral. Good wishes to ya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FilmCrave For Un Deletion

Hello - I added additional reliable sources to the FilmCrave entry. You mentioned in your weak delete that if it had just one more reliable source that you would vote to save it. Can you tract your weak delete vote? Heartiscontentious (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 17:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dustin Diamond

I realise IMBD or blogs for that matter are not considered reliable, but as you said IMBD is used for release dates which clearly shows that the sex tape was released in 2006, so instead of removing the entire section, could it not be changed in the meantime to simply "In 2006, Diamond released his own Sex tape "Screeched - Save by the smell" ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. That particular IMDB entry smacks of very poor quality, to the point where I don't even trust the information in any way; BLP requires stricter care of source quality than other info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've found a news article from the nz herald that is brief but nonetheless not a blog source, will update it, cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasow187 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add it to the talk page first. BLP is one of our most critical policies, and it essentially stands as an exception to the normal idea of "Be bold and change the article first, then see what other's think." Real damage can be done to living people if we don't get it right, so let's take this slow. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB

I would like to immediately start posting at the students' talks, the following: User:Anna Frodesiak/Brown sandbox, one after another, a few hours apart each. Can you help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you mean, for example, add "SIGN YOUR NAME" to all of the people's talk pages. Then, a few hours later, add the "INDENT YOUR POST" notice, and so on? I can do that. I have to do it by hand because, well, I don't understand AWB. But copying and pasting is pretty fast for me. Let me know when you want me to start and which names to take. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Maybe an hour apart for the first two. Then two hours apart. The order is now set in the sandbox:

• 1. HAPPY HELP
• 2. Protect Your Article
• 3. Use Spaces
• 4. Your Name
• 5. Indent

• I will give it a final proof. ou too please. :) Sorry about the no AWB. Why don't we split the task? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at AWB recently. Geez, that tool has the potential to be accidentally misused in a big way. I think that I will steer well clear of it despite my programming background. OTOH, in the right hands it is clearly very, very useful. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I have signed, no need to notify me ;)

I loved AWB. I can actually use it, but it crashes every two minutes because of the G firewall. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Question: are you intentionally using "International English" (i.e., English which is not "technically" correct from a formal, Standard Written English, American/UK perspective)? There are places where it seems that you are; i.e., keeping the English "lighter" and not as "strict" to make it easier for your target audience. Or do you want this in full SWE? For example, in the the second box, point five says "Make your article style like other articles". Style isn't actually a verb that can be used that way; however, I think using that way is perfectly acceptable here because your readers will understand what you mean better than if you write "Make your article conform to the style of other articles" or "Make the style of your article match that of other articles." I'm beginning to realize that I'm a rogue ESL teacher, because I actually think there's value in using "International English" rather than using "American/UK English", particularly in an Asian context. Most teachers I know (and many EFL learners) feel that's treating the students like they can't understand "real" English (which I don't believe in anymore). Am I even making sense? I feel off today, somehow.... 00:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is true. But, we just want to get the message across in the fewest possible words. If the text is too long, the students will float up to the ceiling. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I will try to run a final proof, but there's a chance I'm going to get called away to work in the next few minutes. If so, I'll likely be back in 30-90 minutes. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've hit everything I saw. In the future, we may want to consider a special "seminar" on copyvio/close paraphrasing. Ilona Leki, in her book Understanding ESL Writers talks about how ESL teachers consistently talk about problems in school with Chinese and some other Asian ESL learners simply don't get what we (westerners) mean by plagiarism. I happen to have it on my desk right now...She says, "In some places in the world, students are encouraged to learn/memorize the writings of the learned of antiquity and to use those, not their own thoughts, in their writing. For these students, originality in the sense that we use the term may seem immodest and presumptuous....sometimes students use other authors' texts because they admire the way they are written and feel that changing them would imply that they are trying to improve upon them." Of Chinese writers, she specifically says, "The difference between Western rhetoric's emphasis on individuality and originality and an emphasis on communality of wisdom and knowledge may account for the great concern in the English tradition about plagiarism, a concern not at all shared in cultures whose rhetorical tradition specifically de-emphasizes individuality." She even sites an example (of Malaysian students, but I believe the idea applies well to China, particularly with its Confucian traditions) who thought they understood plagiarism, but didn't understand why their teachers were upset that they had memorized, word-for-word, exactly what a textbook said and repeated it back during an examination. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In re Jan Lokpal bill

On a related article, I started an overelaborate usage review to justify a British English tag -- and then I learned that there's an Indian English template. I haven't checked this article, but recently active related articles are in Indian English. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten unblock request

User talk:Ehsonsaeed has been on hold and unresolved for almost a month. Can you followup on that? Thanks! --Jayron32 04:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Son of a gun....I have unblocked now. Thank you for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference removal

We are still getting sudden WP:RS reference removal on Eternal Life, despite previous warnings. I do not want to start reverting, but we can not have WP:RS references (with links within) removed at will as such. What should be done? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy enough--Alan347 is blocked for 31 hours, and I reverted the edits. We'll see what happens tomorrow once the block is up. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus to strike Shudra sentence for time being due to single-source

Oi Q, we have a few more uninvolved but WP:INDIA-savvy folks weighing in at Lodhi. We had some wiggle on a few topics (relevance of varna overall), but we have some consensus that the current primary Shudra cite lacks sufficient detail to nuance it, and is not strong enough for a categorical statement. We have full consensus to remove it from the lede, and maybe 5/6 agreement to remove entirely (Zuggernaut was okay with keeping it at a lower weighting). If that meets your standards for fixing the Wrong Version, here's the chat: Talk:Lodhi#Shudra_in_lead. On a separate issue, I think MW is still concerned about questioning the Lodhi's Rajput status (which I assert is vital to the article, as contested Rajput claims are a common angle in caste uplift), so no consensus to change there yet, and we'll all have to approach it cautiously once the block lifts.

As an admin, what course of action do you advise if someone immediately deletes "the Lodhis claim to be Rajputs but this is contested" as soon as the block lifts? Do you advise we not revert, but take it to content dispute instead? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just realized I didn't handle the second point (you can see that I've made the consensus edit at Lodhi). As for the potential problem...hmmm...if the revert is by one of the regular participants, leave it and tell them directly on talk (maybe both article and user), to self-revert, given the fact that the article was just protected for edit warring. If it's some random "new" party (or an IP) revert it once and tell them to go to the talk page. One thing that an admin can do is semi-protect the article as a way to prevent people from intentionally or inadvertently editing as an IP rather than their normal account, and to stop "new" people from going against consensus. I've already decided that I won't be the one to make any more protections, but I can raise it at RFPP (or, you can do it directly). Doing so might result in the article being full protected again, but that's not such a terrible thing. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edward.Didier

Please see my response about the issue at the ANI thread. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your note

Yes, I've been familiar with this page since pretty much since my earliest days. I think you were trying to diffuse the situation at ANI regarding an Indian editor (User:Amartya ray2001, if I remember right). At present I edit only articles on current affairs like Anna Hazare, Jan Lokpal Bill and living communities. I admire the effort you put in to understand both sides of the various disputes. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I forgot all about that issue with Armartya ray2001 (I had to go look it up an xyr talk page). Fall of last year feels like a thousand years ago in Wiki-time.... Thank you for your positive words. 04:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nando's

Hi again, I have just had another thought after looking over the country sections on the Nando's page (which are wildly inaccurate in places). Many of them cite news articles or provide no citation whatsoever. How are we to know that the information on these news articles is any more trustworthy than the information on Rate Your Nando's international pages (which I can personally vouch for)? This ban on Rate Your Nando's links is now quite badly degrading the quality of the Nando's wikipedia article, especially with regard to uncited comments, which are clearly just based on people's personal statistics (i.e. counting the number of branches they are aware of). I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Many thanks Jc sed8d (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the correct solution would be to first tag all of the uncited information with {{unreferenced section}} or {{citation needed}} to those parts that are unsourced, and, if no one provides a source in the next few weeks, remove all of the unsourced info, especially if you think it may be inaccurate. We would rather have less information that is accurate than more unsourced, potentially inaccurate. Nothing, though, can make Rate Your Nando's a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)