Jump to content

User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Please note

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ror Is King (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Lisa Dewey

Hi. I noticed you deleted the Lisa Dewey article. Per the AfD the consensus was narrow, if at all. Looks to me like the level of sourcing was appropriate to meet notability. Can we restore the page without Deletion Review? Thanks for your help! Beefalo (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said there, though the issue was close, I read a narrow consensus in the discussion that the sources included did not rise to the level of "significant coverage". Furthermore, the only keep !vote contained a number of false arguments which are not grounded in policy. I do think it possible the person will become notable in the future if he gets more coverage, but as of right now there isn't quite enough per the consensus on those sources, so I must decline. As I mentioned, though, anyone who wants a userfied copy is welcome to have one. I also have no problem if you take it to DRV--I'm still relatively new at closing AfDs (maybe 30 or so thus far), so I don't at all mind a review of my analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. I think I'll hold off on a deletion review, as I agree, there was narrow consensus for deletion. Though I disagree with the outcome. Userfying might be a good idea, though I think I'll leave that to someone else. Thanks. Beef out. (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Inhabited places

See this. Bearing in mind Pmdrive1086's nuking of of MKY's stuff about 10 months ago, where do we draw the line? I mean, honestly, there were/are people on my tiddler of a street comprising 28 houses who have had more "mentions", and we have our own postcode, too! - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you

Dear Qwyrxian, I noticed a comment you posted on the Possible topic ban violation thread at AN/I, which I only stumbled on when I noticed the word 'block' on the watchlist (I was being nosey in all honesty) In your comment you invited the review of others, to which I innocently left a suggestion for you to mull over in regards to re-issuing the topic ban on a specific user. I'm aware that AN/I is a busy place, so felt it best to make you aware that I left a comment for you on there, in case you missed it on the watchlist. Have a good day - regards Wesley☀Mouse 03:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the suggestion; yours is a reasonable one, though I can think of a half dozen other ways to consider further sanctions. Hopefully others will also comment so we can see what a broader range of people think. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wiki bullying

Can you look at the Alan Forsyth page I found a link to a page that gives a second verification to the gold medal win and had it took down. I had already explained this on AFD Alan Fosyth but the editors ignored this and my summary statements and posted misinformation. The strategy seems to be to discredit the page to get their own way. Yaloe (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the initial removal was my mistake; I'll fix it now. Note, though, that this is largely wasted effort, because neither of those awards even slightly imply notability, and I'd wager that it is almost certain that the page will be deleted in a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Revdel

I think that we need a revdel for the most recent message on Talk:Rajput - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

MikeLynch did it while I was reading it. And yes, it definitely needed to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ramesh Aravind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Article

I was going to search for Joseph Marinaccio and noticed that the page was deleted so before I created it (I believe I have a number of sources) I wanted to run it by here.

(Cards1477 (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC))

First, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Marinaccio. This contains the previous discussion that found the subject to be non-notable and thus led to the article's deletion. Don't pay too much attention to the Keep votes, because they seem to have primarily come from one or more people gathered off-wiki to promote the subject without actually understanding how Wikipedia works. The key thing is that you need multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the person in detail. The second thing I recommend is to first create the article in a Sandbox in your user space--this is a temporary holding place where you can build the article first before bringing it into mainspace. Once you have what you think is a legitimate article, I'd be happy to review it and let you know if it seems to overcome the problems of the previous article (admins can see copies of deleted articles in most cases). Then, if you have met the previous concerns, we can move the article into mainspace. If you don't meet the concerns, though, it will be deleted nearly immediately under [[[WP:CSD#G4|our speedy deletion criteria about recreating articles deleted via AfD]]. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Rejedef and European geography. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hey Qwyrxian, there's a discussion at WP:ANI that needs your input. It doesn't directly involve your behavior, but it does involve a user whom you seem to have interacted with in the past, and we hope you can provide some insight. Thanks! --Jayron32 04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyes@wikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with a dead source

Zeenews is an entirely online news resource - no print version etc. Rajnath Singh uses it extensively, with the details being "Rajnath Singh: Profile". Zee News.. Alas, no date is mentioned and the link is dead. It is also dead at Wayback.

I have searched Zeenews extensively and cannot find the article among the 2600+ headlined results for "rajnath singh" or numerous variants. I've even tried searching on the name given for his father and that returns no result at all.

It bothers me because some of the statements attributed to the article just seem to be a "too much information" situation: that one profile should contain all of that is pretty unusual in my experience of Zeenews coverage. Do you have any thoughts regarding how I can progress this? I could ask for alternate sources on the article talk page but my guess is that I'll be ignored or shouted at, on the basis that it is already sourced. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've some ideas, but I want to look at it in detail; I'll either get to it in about 4 hours, or I'll have to leave it for about 2 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not a rush job. It is sourced, albeit I have some doubts. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lamb

Hi there Qwyrxian, thanks for your perspective on my Brian Lamb draft earlier this week; there seemed to be consensus for some of your Personal life suggestions, and I edited my draft accordingly, with a follow-up. Since then, however, the discussion hasn't progressed any further. Would you mind looking again and, if you think it's ready, do a histmerge? WWB Too (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, are you around? Sorry for continually bothering you about things like this. :( SilverserenC 23:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was busy, then sick for the past few days. I'm going to try to catch up on my watchlist today; I'll probably get to this tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
All done! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thank you very much! And I agree, sorry to bother: I think you're the only admin currently involved at Paid Editor Help, and I'm very glad you are. Of course I'd like to see other admins get involved involved; not fair to you or (perhaps) me for there to be just one gatekeeper on big overhauls. I've actually added one more request w/r/t an error I introduced late, but I'll bug Silver about it as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_topic_ban_violation

You closed this discussion at ANI, but I think you forgot that the current year is 2012. Could you correct your close? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out; I changed it in the archive since it was gone by the time I got back. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

About User talk:Trevguy

You recently left a block warning for this person. He just created a new bogus article, see his talk page. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've blocked xyr for a week, and tagged the page for speedy deletion. If xe starts up again after the week, let me know--the next block is indefinite. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New Article User:Cards1477/Joseph Marinaccio

I finished creating this article and wanted to run it by here because it had been deleted in the past. I believe it does meet the notability requirments and I found sufficient sources.

(Cards1477 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC))

None of those are both reliable sources and independent. TrueKnowledge and Therichest.org copy their info from Wikipedia. Crunchbase is a user edited wiki. PRlog are press releases, which means it's content created by the subject, and thus not independent (and only reliable for a very minimal amount of info). The slamcontent and blog.apprmaker are, of course, not independent. Thus, this version does not in any way address the problems of the deletion discussion, nor does is verify that the subject is notable. Could Marinaccio be notable in the future? MAybe. But until xe's covered in detail in multiple, independent RS, he cannot have an article here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul comments in Codex Alimentarius article

On the Codex Alimentarius talk page[1], you state that "The Ron Paul comments are WP:UNDUE" and that "Paul is not a recognized authority on the subject, he is not directly involved in major legislation related to it, and thus his opinion simply isn't important. As such, it violates WP:NPOV to include the comments here." I find this to be an interesting argument, as it clearly runs contrary to the approach on other WP alt-med related articles. To take but one example, in the Alternative Medicine article, we find the anti-alt med opinions of an Australian comedian, Tim Minchin, being quoted. Many people have tried to remove these comments, quoting essentially the same grounds as yourself, but without success. I'd therefore be interested in your thoughts on this.Vitaminman (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Codex isn't alt-medicine. That is, it's a mainstream, widely recognized advisory board that is listen to by many governments. That being said, I would also question the inclusion of Tim Minchin's opinion on almost anything, unless the article had a dedicated pop culture section (which some people like, and others don't). Alternatively, if Minchin had done regular, widely recognized fundraising or support for or against some form of alternative medicine, that might be okay (like how we have lists of "famous vegetarians").
If you think the info is being included inappropriately, I recommend following dispute resolution. In this case, it sounds like a post on WP:NPOVN may be the best bet, since WP:UNDUE is a part of WP:NPOV. I regret that I cannot get involved, as I've got too many issues on my plate already. But if you need help setting up the DR (like an RfC or the like), let me know. And, of course, if you think I'm wrong on the Codex, I can help you set up DR there, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for these comments, very helpful indeed. Re. the Codex, whilst it's not alt med per se, it is a major alt med issue.[2] Re. Tim Minchin's opinion on alt med, I think I'll begin by making an edit and citing the same grounds as you did for the Ron Paul removal. I'll also make an appropriate entry on the talk page. If this fails, which it probably will, I'll follow the approach you outline above. Meantime, thanks again.Vitaminman (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Check this link [[3]] according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cossde Royal College Colombo is the only school that has Royal charter or consent to use Royal prefix in Sri Lanka (Masu7 (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC))

Okay, if that's true, to add to the Royal College Colombo article, it 1) needs a source, and 2) needs to be written differently. You can't put two different sets of parenthesis next to each other. Finally, even if all of that were fixed, I think it's probably not important enough for the lead, and definitely not important enough for the first sentence. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please. Stop adding the claim that Royal College Colombo is the only college that can "officially" use the word "Royal" in Sri Lanka until you have a reliable secondary source that verifies this claim. Period. This is a disputed point (obviously, by the simple fact that other colleges have the word and the government has never tried to stop them). So you need a rock solid source, and even then we'll have to phrase in terms of "Source X has argued that ..." But until you have that source, it cannot be in the article, per WP:V. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It was the user super accurate Cossde who had mentioned about this on Royal College Colombo article [1]. In fact he dominates or all users and wants to have only one school that uses "Royal" prefix in wikipedia (saying it is only Royal College Colombo who is entitled and got the consent to use the Royal prefix by Royal charter without absolutely no references at all. Infact this user may be thinking that Royal College Colombo although situated in Colombo Sri Lanka is located in United Kingdom.

His prestigious bullying attempts can be clearly seen on Cinnamon Gardens article as well and attempts to avoid Thurstan College Colombo being added.(Masu7 (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)).

That's exactly my point: we cannot use Cossde's word as evidence that these are not royal colleges. We go by what sources say. Now, at the momemnt, I'm not watching those other articles...and I don't really want to get involved in another massive dispute (as this appears to be)...but I will consider it. Let me ask a very first question: what do the universities call themselves? What's on their websites, their official brochures, their tax forms, etc.? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I checked the first one, and I have moved it, and provided an explanation. I didn't realize the extent of the problem (i.e., intentionally using non-English names when policy requires that we use English ones if they exist), and deliberately ignoring what the sources say, is not acceptable, and bugs me enough that I'll get involved. I've moved just one for now; I want to wait at least a few days and see if there is a response, then I'll start moving the rest (I may be busy though, so it may take a fair span of time). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see at least one administrator is alive and understands the simple point that I am making (this is in no way I am blaming wiki administrators - I just want to make my point). All details are on web sites and the references that are addded. Any one who can read English could understand my point. I recon that the user [[4]] to be banned from editing due to his unfair domination on other Sri Lankan schools just blindly trying to undermine the quality of other schools for example Nalanda College, Colombo and all other Royal Colleges in Sri Lanka. Check the comments on Cossde Talk Page [[5]]. If the administrators can't monitor and see what the user Cossde is doing any one could think that they are blind and playing double standards.(Masu7 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)).

Cossde - Show the world your entitlement and consent to use Royal prefix to your Royal College Colombo before claiming that other schools that use Royal prefix do not have entitlement and consent by Royal charter to be called Royal. You also always try to sling mud at Nalanda College Colombo. Do you think that the students from Nalanda College Colombo do not have the entitlement or consent to talk and write English by Royal charter ?. I also have clearly seen your desperate attempts to avoid Thurstan College Colombo being added to Cinnamon Gardens page. Shame on you Royal College Colombo. Do you think that you own Wikipedia ? Check your page ratings at the bottom too.(Masu7 (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)).

As much as Cossde is wrong on the naming issue, I also don't want to help someone like yourself who is attacking other editors. Stop it. If you can deal with the issue civilly and per our dispute resolution policies. If you cannot, thank you for alerting me to it and I will take it from here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Lot of thanks.

  • Hi Qwyrxian,thanks for moving British Lingua to proper name,actually I wanted that,but it was twice deleted,was not possible to create it again,and I had no mood to ask the administrator to reopen the page,so I created with a bit new title.I appreciate your move.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. However, I can't recommend the approach you took; it actually falls under disruptive editing. Recreating a page under a different name to avoid a page lock is simply not allowed, and will likely get you blocked. Instead, create the page in a sandbox in your userspace, then when it's done, ask an admin to move it over. Or you could even use Articles for Creation, where it will automatically be reviewed over time. So, glad that it worked out in this case, but please don't do that again in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


a gentle ping re Talk:Sanatan Sanstha

Hey, Qwyrxian, just a gentle reminder about the progressing discussion at Talk:Sanatan Sanstha, which has also now spread to my sandbox. Apologies if you're still following it and I'm just being impatient; I just wanted to double check. I've created a draft of the proposed changes to the section in question in said sandbox, but I think more eyes on it would be useful, especially since some of the sources seem dubious, and this is not my area of expertise. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it and let us know what you think? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder--I had forgot, in fact. I should likely have time to respond today, though since it's a more involved task I'll need to leave it until later (maybe 6 or 12 hours). If I can't get to it in detail, I'll at least leave a note. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries, whatever you have time for (even if that's nothing!) :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Royal College Panadura

Hi, Qwyrxian, would appreciate your input on my suggestion on the talk page. Cossde (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Royal College Panadura's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cossde (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Royal College Panadura's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cossde (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad

Hi. As you would have noticed in the talk page, the entire lot of articles pulled into the "Telangana" fray seem to suggest that it would be better discussed in WP:GEOG. Don't you think the discussion should be closed, the matter taken there and put up clearly so that many more editors, including those who are experienced in Geography related discussions, can comment? I see this one turning a bit hostile between the two editors, should it go further. And the other cities, including those from outside India, have been cited as examples, and though a violation of WP:OSE, lead me to believe that this would go smoother if it were discussed elsewhere. Regards. Secret of success (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. One discussion is much better than ten. It's odd: it seems abundantly clear to me that the push to include it is being done entirely for off-Wiki POV pushing purposes...but it may well be that the inclusion is actually "right" in a Wikipedia sense, too. Do you think we should try to forcefully close the discussions (i.e., just collapse them), or instead ask nicely if we can move them? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Lets use that "do not modify" template and close it. Carrying the plague certainly won't do. The matter has to be clearly laid out on the appropriate noticeboard, I'll do that, and this one, just forgotten about. Off-wiki POV's don't matter here, do they? I'm not sure whether we need the consent of the editors to close it, though. Think you might know better. Secret of success (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding Interaction

I have chosen to not have any further interaction with Hengistmate and have deleted all such interactions from my talk page. Alas, this also removed your answer to him. You may wish to re-post it on his talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it's not that important. Thanks for letting me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

COPS

Thank you for stepping in on the COPS page. Very much appreciated. NECRATSpeak to me 06:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. The process is going to take quite a while, I think, since the English name isn't quite as clear as I thought. But we'll figure it out eventually. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TrueBlood12

The user changed the page's content, so your MFD rationale no longer applies. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've withdrawn the request. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent message.

Hi, Qwyrxian. Sorry didn't pick up your message earlier; it has been archived on Mr. Macon's page.

As you say, you have not looked into the underlying issue. Allow me to describe it as briefly as possible, so that you will, perhaps, understand my point of view. I shall try not to take up too much of your time.

Some weeks ago I made a point on a talk page. As Wikipedia recommends, I phrased it as comprehensively as possible. I understand that this is advisable so as not to appear abrupt or terse. It is something I always try to do anyway. The point was a supported view, verifiable according to Wikipedia's criteria.

Unfortunately, another contributor, Andy Dingley, found my use of measured English objectionable, and responded with the following response: 'Patronising tosser. "You make a number of points, several of which are true" Well pardon me. As to references, yours are hardly impressive, being the sort of coffee table "Big Boy's Book of WAR!!!" that are the bane of Wikipedia.'

I hope you will agree that that response is unwarranted, and a long way from Wikipedia's principles. When I objected, I was upbraided by several "editors" who lectured me about civility. As it happens, one of them has subsequently been blocked indefinitely, for persistent incivility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Srobak

Mr. Macon also decided to become involved. Fair enough; I should have ignored Mr. Dingley's deliberate and calculated abuse. Mr. Macon delivered one of his admonishments, advising me about my "behavioural problems". I do not like someone 5,000 miles away, who has never met me, telling me, after I have been called a "patronising tosser", that I have behavioural problems. I suspect that you wouldn't, either. However, his message to Mr. Dingley was of a different tone altogether: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=461316175#.22Patronising_Tosser.22

That is, in my view, the misconception about the meaning of "administrator". Many people enjoy laying down the law on Wikipedia. It seems to meet some sort of need. But Wikipedia does not say that editors may apply the rules selectively, condemning incivility from some whilst condoning it from their friends.

Mr. Dingley then began what I would say Wikipedia describes as harassment, taking issue with me on a number of articles, registering complaints, pettifogging, raising objections that I was not alone in having difficulty understanding, and wasting a lot of people's time. An example here.

At times, it bordered on the hysterical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive171#User:Hengistmate_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Protected.29

A study of Mr. Dingley's communications seems to me to reveal that incivility, derision, and sarcasm are regular features. But that's up to him. As long as it isn't directed towards me, that's for the recipients to sort out.

Since I established the case for my arguments, to the satisfaction of a consensus, Mr. Dingley has largely fallen silent, so that matter is dealt with as far as I am concerned.

Meanwhile, Mr. Macon continued to rebuke quite a lot people. You will note that it is his requirements that have to be met, not Wikipedia's. He seemed to be taking issue with a great many editors, and implying subtly, and in a slightly intimidatory fashion, that he would take disciplinary action against them if they did not comply with his instructions. I took the liberty of directing some of them to Mr. Macon's message to Mr. Dingley, so that they could, shall we say, see the bigger picture. I see no harm in exposing hypocrisy when someone is being bullied.

Then, the other day, it occurred to me to see whether Mr. Macon was actually in a position to impose the sanctions to which he obliquely refers. And, as you acknowledge, it turns out that he isn't. I'm not questioning the perfectly acceptable mild admonishments that every editor is entitled to issue, but the suggestion of some conferred authority.

That's all I did. I asked him if he was an Administrator. As you have seen, his first response was evasive and blustering. I repeated the question, and the outcome has been quite extraordinary. I don't know why he didn't simply explain, as you have done, that any editor is free to remind others of the requirement of civility. Instead he has said that he wants no further interaction with me. It also seems that he wants no previous interaction with me, since he has removed all traces of our past encounters from both his talk page and mine, as if he does not want anyone to see them. He has even removed Mr. Dingley's complaint about me from my talk page. This airbrushing is positively Orwellian. However, it has produced a situation with which I am quite happy.

It has drawn a line under the whole, unfortunate episode. Mr. Dingley is at liberty to continue creating articles about esoteric mechanical devices. The opportunity is still open to him to contest any assertions I make, as long as he complies with Wikipedia principles. Mr. Macon's tone when communicating with other editors seems to have softened somewhat, although he still tries to introduce a little sarcasm. That is not my problem. As to further interaction with me, I sincerely hope he keeps his promise. And I am at liberty to continue to discuss my small area of interest with other, reasonable editors who do not find the measured and considered use of the English language an affront. An apology from the two gentlemen under discussion would be the icing on the cake, but I suspect that is rather ambitious.

I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. I am not interested in its workings, and do not wish to become a career Wikipedian. My only wish, as a historian and author, is to attempt to limit the damage done to the hard work of my profession by some editors who appear to have received a book token for Christmas.

Wikipedia seems to bring out both the best and worst in people. I suspect that if some of the more officious and egotistical editors were able to objectively study the Principles, they would be surprised at how frequently they breach them. That is probably a forlorn hope. There is none so blind as those who will not see. In a comparatively short time, I have learned that narcissism and one-upmanship are sometimes the true motives. It is interesting to see how some editors manipulate the rules to suit their purposes.

In my profession I meet and correspond with experts in the field from throughout Europe, Russia, the U.S.A., Australasia, and probably some other continents. I have never encountered the animosity that all too often manifests itself on Wikipedia.

Let me assure you of my good faith. I have certainly made mistakes in the past, but improving the project is my only aim. If you check my contributions I hope you will find that discussions have been carried out in a civil and respectful manner, sometimes with humour, and in the spirit of being prepared to listen to an opposing point of view. When I am called a patronising tosser, that's a different matter.

You might consider this entire message to be a personal attack, but I would beg to differ. It is my explanation to you. Some editors are quite skilled at blurring the distinction between personal attacks and content. If it keeps them happy, so be it.

Let us now declare the matter closed, and start with a clean sheet. It never happened.

This turned out longer than I expected. Sorry about that. As somebody said, "I didn't have time to make it shorter."

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attack here, so that's fine. On Andy Dingley, that comment sounds a bit off, though I'd have to know the context to be sure. On Guy Macon, though, I can give an explanation that may help: in the past, Guy Macon has admitted on Wikipedia to having some form of Autism spectrum disorder. He has said that this can make him obsessive about righting what he perceives to be wrongs, including to the point that it might cross Wikipedia's WP:CIVILITY rules. As such, through some extended discussions, he's found it best in many cases to simply withdraw from conversations (by blanking messages that are upsetting) than to follow through with them, because following through on them sometimes leads to problems in his own part. This is especially the case because he has been on the wrong end of intentional attacks on Wikipedia, and has had to deal with some bad faith, promotional editing. But he is definitely getting better than before.
This, I think, speaks more generally to the problems you point out with Wikipedia. Everyone is here. Some, like Guy Macon, are self-aware and do their best to contribute positively even when it is challenging (and I will say that, 9 times out of 10, Guy Macon does an excellent job on Wikipedia). Others, whom you may have encountered, believe that nature of Wikipedia means they can say whatever f***ing thing they like to anyone and defend it by the "rules"; some even go so far as to argue that the only thing that matters is reason and being right, and that civility is an outmoded concept on the Internet. Personally, I and a lot of other good faith editors disagree, and I'm sorry that your experience thus far has been negative. If you do encounter problems in the future, feel free to bring questions to me before you end up in a spiraling pile of badness; I'm not on as much as I used to be, but if I think I can stop a problem before it starts, I'll try to jump in when I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for your courteous and helpful reply. I am sorry to hear of Mr. Macon's difficulties, although I must say that he is remarkably lucid when the situation as he sees it demands. Perhaps Wikipedia could provide an icon that says something like, "This editor has not got all his chairs at home," so that we can make the necessary allowances. What medical condition accounts for Mr. Dingley's demeanour, I cannot say.

I would agree that reason is extremely important, but what matters is the correctness of the information, not of the editor.

In view of recent events, I don't anticipate any further problems, but thank you for your very kind offer.

Kind regards, Hengistmate (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Histmerge, if you would please

Can I please get a histmerge from User:Alexwillis/Colin Digiaro to Colin Digiaro? Thanks. :3 SilverserenC 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I should be able to get to it tonight (about 12 hours from now)--I always like to review the history and discussion first. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. Feel free to change any of the wording if you feel it needs to sound more neutral. SilverserenC 00:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on User talk:Brews ohare/sandbox

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Brews ohare/sandbox. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Script at Talk:Yadav

Aside from being a non-English comment at Talk:Yadav#Ram Baran Yadav, I've just run the script through GTranslate, which has done half a job on it and I think that it is a personal attack. Can I remove the script but leave the English part of the comment? - Sitush (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. That translate was ambiguous...it could have been an attack, or it could have been praise, or it could have been an attack masquerading as praise. Removing seems like the safest option, he can resay it in English if he wants. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, because GTrans did half a job of translation. I took the rest as gut feeling, based on experience gained not only here on WP but also as an Englishman who has found quite often that when I wander into a pub in Wales then immediately the conversation switches from English to Welsh! And that is "no dim" (no accident). - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I need review

Hello, Qwyrxian, I am Dipankan001, the one who had made mistakes with CSD. I'd be asking you to kindly leave me a review here: User:Dipankan001/What have I learnt. I hope that you're responsive towards this. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 06:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the page, and realized I'll need to do some research to give you good feedback. I will try to do so, but it won't be today; I might get to it tomorrow, time depending; otherwise, next week. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New MfD on User:TrueBlood12

... is here, since you contributed to the last discussion I thought I'd notify you. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I was wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Borealdreams#March.2C_2012

I don't want to get involved, and don't wish to be suckered into something that Mr. Macon will claim is a personal attack, but this is intolerable. For the time being, I shall not contact him via his User Page, since he will, no doubt, claim that I am harassing him, but I shall take issue if he does not withdraw his comments. Hengistmate (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Techno music Page

Qwyrxian, what's up, I have some questions for you, maybe you can help. If I find that one or a few editors are 'ganging up' on me again (on the Techno music page), trying to silence information before the public reads it ie. a request for citation (Check in the View History this week for article), is there some channel on Wikipedia to report the incidents to 'higher ups'? Are there some editors who have some over-riding power? The incidents are on the Techno page. I've added that request tag for inline citations, and the guy keeps reverting my requests, for statements that have no citation. As per our previous discussion, I think the request for citation should be allowed to stand for 2 months, to give editors time to get their sources. I don't think there is anything wrong in asking for the source, but he keeps reverting my request. Also a european added some information, and these guys keep deleting it, because it's outside of 'Detroit'. Let me know if there are any channels to raise my case to. Thanks for helping clean up the Trance page by the way.Danceking5 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As you might expect, there are two sides to this story, and Danceking5 is not being forthcoming about what changes and arguments he's actually trying to make. He's doing several things at once:
  • He kept re-adding someone else's dubious, uncited, unexplained claim that 3 heretofore unmentioned, unknown Swedes co-invented techno.
  • Without explanation, he's requesting citations for something that isn't contentious: techno's vague "mid-1980s" origins, in the infobox and lead, both of which are accurately summarizing the article content. If he feel's it's not accurately summarizing the content, he needs to explain better what he means on the talk page. [Update: he's now saying "1980s" is good enough.]
  • On the talk page, if I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do), he's saying, based on records he listened to, that the article is wrong when it says one particular record from 1985 ("No UFOs") is the first techno record, really a record from 1987 is. But the article doesn't say what he apparently thinks it says. [Update: he says the article content has changed.]
  • On the talk page, he's saying, unconvincingly, that the numerous reliable sources cited for techno's exclusive Detroit origins are wrong.
A bit of background:
As you're probably aware, genres are often named well after trends are identified, and the trends don't always have a distinct, single point of origin. In this regard, techno is no exception; there's as much debate over what the "first techno track" is (or even what constitutes techno, before it had been named) as there is over the "first rock & roll song".
So in the techno article, we've carefully avoided pinning techno's origins down to a single artist, song, or year; we don't say with certainty that anything prior to what was on the first "techno" compilation necessarily is techno, only that certain works, artists, and developments were important events in the genre's history. However, there's a preponderance of reliable sources which isolate three (sometimes four) Detroit-area musicians as the originators. These sources vary in how far back they go when identifying pieces of music as techno, but they agree on techno's Detroit origins and the first "techno" compilation's release in 1988 as the first naming of the genre. There's also a utter absence of alternative histories in reliable sources, aside from increasingly debunked folklore about alleged European origins. Thus, we emphasize the Detroit-focused narrative, with ample citations. We also acknowledge a popular but unsupported theory about a Frankfurt origin.
Nevertheless, every so often, someone comes along and asserts that everybody's got it wrong, techno was actually invented by someone who made something vaguely techno-like at some other time, in some other place. If you review Talk:Techno and its archives, you'll see there have been several outlandish claims along these lines, and every single time, when we demand reliable sources, none are ever produced, not even just to cast doubt on the Detroit-based chronology, let alone support any alternative theories.
Feel free to join in on Talk:Techno, if you want :) —mjb (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
@Mjb, don't waste your energy, seriously, if dk5 has sources that we can look at great, otherwise, for me at least, it's a complete waste of time dealing with any of this.-- Semitransgenic talk. 11:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Apologies to everyone, but I don't have the time right now to get involved in another dispute of epic proportions, particularly about music (a topic I'm terribly uninformed about), especially a music genre I don't even particularly like. Danceking5, if you don't feel like you're being heard on the talk page discussion, I recommend following dispute resolution; given the complexity of the problem (it doesn't look like you have a single, specific question that could be framed in an RfC), I recommend opening a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. 01:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential new category

Do you think that it might assist matters if I were to create a Category:Claimed Kshatriya or similar? I could fiddle with the Kshatriya article itself to expand on how sanskritisation & the like gave rise to claims. We cannot really bin the existing Category:Kshatriya because there are a few groups that are generally accepted by everyone to be of that varna. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it stop the edit warring? No, certainly not, because then the dispute simply becomes "claimed" versus "real". Plus, I don't think you could find an objective distinction between the two--at what point does a claim become widely believed enough to be "real"? However, what about a different approach--redefine what the Category:Kshatriya means. Take a look at Category:Eco-terrorism, especially the big explanation for what the category means at the top. THen look at the entries; obviously, for instance, the FBI Counterterrorism Division, is not an eco-terrorist organization (or is it! maybe I should start a blog....). We could define Category:Kshatriya as being, not groups that are Kshatriya, but, rather, groups that are related to the concept of Ksyhatriya. This would not change anything about the requirement that all actual claims in articles be well-sourced. And you still couldn't include a group in the category unless it had at least a sentence stating, "Though this group claims to be Kshatriya, everyone else thinks they're Shudra.(ref)"...but said sentence would be sufficient to go into the category.
This is probably too big of a decision to make unilaterally. How about starting a discussion on Category Talk:Kshatriya, and then dropping a note on WT:INB about the discussion? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Different histmerge

Alright, i've finished up working on the SGN draft. Can I get it histmerged with MindJolt? The changes are mainly just more references, some extra info on what they've accomplished and, of course, the name change of the company. I guess, after it's merged, i'm going to have to move the MindJolt page to the proper title. SilverserenC 03:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll check into it tonight. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN and caste articles

Aware as I am of your past suggestions that people refer certain issues to WP:DRN, and being myself previously supportive of those suggestions, this is just a note to let you know that following this outcome I am unlikely to be bothering with it again. The place is useless for caste stuff and doesn't seem to be achieving a great deal elsewhere either. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked into that after I saw you post about it on Boing!'s page. That does look like it didn't work out. Well, as long as you're trying to take the issue somewhere (RSN, etc.), then at least you can't be accused of bad faith editing. That particular issue looks like a big mess...is there any chance that abandoning it is better? I know that the worry is that it sets a bad precedent. But letting one article dominate to the point of stress sometimes isn't worth it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not stressed. I just know not to bother with DRN in future. RSN will achieve nothing in this instance because there are decent sources on both sides, and that is why I proposed showing both at DRN, only to be ignored by IPs and seemingly rejected by the closer. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you for your ANI notification. My problem with Andy Dingley was that he was deleting my contributions and refusing to explain why. He now seems to have stopped so I am hoping he has learned his lesson. I don't want to pursue it any further just now because it would probably lead to another argument. Biscuittin (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem; I knew that the exchange between you and Andy wasn't directly related, but since Hengistmate had used it as "evidence" of bad behavior on Andy's part, I felt it relevant to mention (and then, of course, had to notify you). I'm glad that, at least on your part, it seems to have worked out alright. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello... I'm just doing some traceback, and it appears you were the one that started the "Brewing Problems" page. Is this correct? If this is the case, and I in no way initiated this inquiry/investigation that lead to you starting that discussion, can you please inform Guy of this fact, as frankly I am getting tired of his claims to be helping me "get in line with" wikipedia policy based on his years of editing & complete neutrality, when in fact all he is trying to do is shut me up and protect/defend other users who feel they can attack, use sarcasm, and not defend their edits with defensible proof (blank edit comment is their proof) to their absolute rightness. Thank you! Borealdreams (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was the one to open the thread; I've now explained as much to Guy Macon. Guy claimed in xyr last edit to your talkpage that xe has withdrawn from trying to "help" you, and I've recommended that xe follow through with this plan. Hopefully that should be the end of the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thirugnana_Sambandar

With reference to Talk:Thirugnana_Sambandar#Recent_edits_discussion, the disruption is back after protection lapsed and Special:Contributions/Nandeeswara_nadar1232 seems to be a sockpuppet too. Please check. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the new sock, re-opened the SPI to see if there are any other likely accounts we haven't noticed yet, and semi-protected the page for a month. One thing that strikes me as odd is that the edits are clearly from the same person, as the follow the same pattern and have the same basic information, but the words aren't identical, which makes me think the person is typing that addition up by hand from memory every time. That's an awful lot of work, and you'd think that after being blocked so many times they'd get tired of re-doing that work all of the time. Usually, insistent sockers either just copy and paste the info each time, or, if they're really adamant, actually try to make significantly different versions so that they can try to appear like a distinct person. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Another one to review

I feel rather bad about always coming to you for this stuff. :( But, could you review Strayer University and the draft at User:Hamilton83/my sandbox and histmerge them (or otherwise) if you feel the draft meets standards. It looks good to me, much better sourcing than the current article. The draft text doesn't look overly puffy. Some parts could perhaps be argued to tone it down, but I don't really see an issue personally. If you have any changes you wish to be made, the section on Paid Editor Help is here. Thanks. SilverserenC 05:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The ANI

Hi Q. - I know we have a 'chequered' past, but seeing this[6], I wanted to 're-draw' your attention to the weird and disruptive obsession this editor has with Columbo because you seem to be protecting him. The ANI[7] seems to be in play though I have become disgusted with it, as I did long ago with the mediation which this is not about, it's about B's behaviour. Just thought you should know, some of us think the editor is a troll, so do not get angry that you don't see it - we have seen it. He's sure been acting the part. You probably noticed his responses to the ANI were on his talk page. Just thought you should know. I appreciate your input to the ANI. I'm prepared to let that drop. Someone else (clearly not you unless he pisses you off) will get him, as they say.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, Q., your input really is appreciated at the ANI but I wonder: don't you think you should take another look at the subject before posting? You and I have had an uncomfortable past ... to me it is so far away I cannot recall, really. But in my opinion you are defending an editor who is going to be real trouble in future. And I don't ever recall you being quite so fair with me, am I in error?—Djathinkimacowboy 18:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I did look at his recent contributions, and I don't see any trolling. I see a user who may well (now or later) need to be blocked on competence grounds, but I do not see a user who is just here for the lulz, which is what a troll is. I checked the diffs you added, and none of them seem to be done to provoke a reaction. But, out of a sense of fairness, I'll look again tonight when I have more time. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be appreciated. Heavens, you think nothing of his replying to the ANI on his talk page?! I honestly can't understand why you are not seeing the things at least two other admins have seen. This person is trouble, but I have backed out of all that. All I want is for the Columbo article not to be destroyed by this editor, who now seems to have a 'partner/shadow' in User:Detectiveboy. Be careful and thorough, that is all I ask.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Whenaxis's talk page.
Message added 20:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Colin Digiaro article

I think, at this point, we should just go for it. It's quite clear that the draft is better than the mainspace article. And since the latter does exist at the moment, there's no reason not to implement the improvements. If you still feel that it's not strong enough for inclusion, then feel free to nominate it at AfD, but we really have no reason not to add the improvements to an article that is already in mainspace. It would be different if we were talking about a draft for a new article. SilverserenC 02:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are technically correct--you could actually just copy and paste it without my help, using links to attribute (so long as Alexwillis's draft isn't deleted). I'll do the history merge tonight, then think about whether I want to AfD later. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

U-KISS

Hello. Thank you for granting my request for the protection of the article U-KISS even in short span. jmarkfrancia (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on my talk page again

Hey Qwyrxian. Another IP address vandalised my talk page. Dunno how well range blocks are gonna work. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Whenaxis's talk page.
Message added 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Africa

Excuse me! the term "hot air" and "blowing" comes into mind. No offense, but what is the matter? You didnt revert the previous version, because this occured in light of a fourth editor's comment. What you did however, is remove 19 edits from the lead to which has been restored; YOU should STOP edit warring.

Now! If you could explain to me what is wrong with the stement "is multifaceted and has been a major influence on art, culture and philosophy" and we can have a humane debate.Otelemuyen (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal communiqué re: ANI

Q., I want you to understand I appreciate what you said in your post. It was clearly time for me to back off - much of what I had to say in my last posts at the ANI were directed at the ANI, not at the editor in question. I knew already he was a lost cause for me. The idea that some editors are simply not heeded is what angers me a bit. As I said clearly, I accept the findings/decisions made there, though it may upset me to do so. My respect for my part is there, you see? It was a matter of feeling no respect shown to me. Perhaps I deserve none, I don't know anymore. As for the sockpuppetry I mentioned, well, I can say I recall the SPI done against me not so long ago. Unfounded and silly, but it was done. How about that. And I do have evidence to back the puppet allegation, only not enough. Sometimes it feels like the carpet is yanked out from under me just because it's me. It's important for me to clarify my feelings and opinions. Please don't take this badly - I admire your input here and your work.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's the little things: Incidentally, have you seen this deliberate disruption to the ANI itself?[8] Perhaps I must let him go, but he's going to be in the soup sooner rather than later. The admins went far too easy on this editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand the frustration of taking something to ANI that seems obvious to yourself, but that gets no traction from others. I've brought people before that I thought were obviously POV pushers, here only to make their point and not contribute constructively, and been told I was wrong (or that I was too soon). Over time, it becomes easier, because you start to see ANI as being like everything else on Wikipedia: the whole point is that we don't make decisions unilaterally (well, admins often do, but theoretically, at least, their actions are subject to review), and sometimes our own opinions do not match community consensus.
But, if I may, the example you give in your second paragraph is a perfect example of where you are misreading the situation. Take a look at that diff more closely. Look at the time stamps, and the surrounding text. You can see that he's editing his own comments there. Now take a look at the history; here's what happened:
  1. On 26 March at 10:01, B made this edit, adding a comment to the discussion.
  2. On 26 March at 22:12, B made this edit, which adds a significant response, and slightly modifies his 10:01 response. Yes, you usually shouldn't modify your old responses if it changes the meaning, but his edit merely fixes the wording (an English correction, basically).
  3. At 22:19, B made a very small formatting and grammar edit to the previous post in this edit.
  4. At 22:35, B adds text to his earlier comment in this edit. Since no one had yet responded to his 22:12/19 comment, this is acceptable.
  5. Because B is a relatively new user, SineBot automatically signed the small 22:35 addition at 22:36 in this edit.
  6. At 22:39, B removes the SineBot signature (which makes sense, since he intended all of that to be a single comment, and having that signature adds a weird series of time stamps), and modifies his main time stamp at the bottom, to show that, basically, from 22:12-22:39 was all "one edit", it's just that it took him a few tries to get it right. This is the edit you said above was "deliberate disruption".
In other words, what you are calling deliberate disruption is actually good editing! Sure, it would be ideal if, on a high-edit rate board like ANI B made sure to get everything right in a single edit...but I know lots of established editors (including myself) that sometimes take a few shots to get something right, especially when I think of an additional point after the fact. So, your presumption that B is disruptive is causing you to misread good faith, productive edits as disruptive. This is why I think that it's time to back away, because your certainty that B is disruptive is altering your good judgment. Note that I'm not trying to be further critical here, I'm just trying to help you see why what you see as disruption definitely (at least in this case) is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. It truly was a total misreading of the edits. I think of the trouble I get in, posting two or three consecutive posts because I don't like the editing style B3 employed - but that is mere preference. (I'm absentminded, I like the 'cards on the table' approach, and lots of admins dislike that for some reason - they see it as 'nagging'.) That may be why I was blind to what he did. In any case, it still indicates B knows what he's doing and may not be such a newbie after all. A new account does not equal a newbie. Anyway, I very much appreciate that you laid it out for me. Helps me see my errors and my erroneous approach at ANI. I should have presented the diffs and left it at that.—Djathinkimacowboy 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cossde and Nalanda College Colombo
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian/Archive_29&oldid=1148818116"