Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs) →Baiting: new section |
→Baiting: no thanks |
||
Line 669:
I saw the first two sentences of this post [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Senkaku_Islands&diff=442630389&oldid=442302423] and I get the impression that you have described yourself as a very sad victim of my tremendously mean-spirited baiting. It will be nice if you can provide some details of the actual baiting process... like how you've been baited into ignoring other people's constructive ideas/posts (infuriating other parties in the process), calling people "allegedly smart", branding light-hearted comics as racist, or writing wonderful rants about your left-leaning political worldview. I will read the rest of the post later. Meanwhile, here's a little something to lighten up the mood [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d2/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg/409px-Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg]. --[[User:Bobthefish2|Bobthefish2]] ([[User talk:Bobthefish2|talk]]) 07:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
:No thanks. Doing so would, in fact, be part of what benefits you by distracting me and setting me off. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian#top|talk]]) 08:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 08:45, 2 August 2011
You can send me the user's threatening email
You can also forward it to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team for ticketing purposes. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 07:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Elen of the Roads had me send it to her; after reading it, she blocked the user, and, after being threatened herself, and revoked the user's email privileges. The target of the original threat (DGG) has also been notified, just in case he wants to take it seriously. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Looks like this may have been resolved, but FYI, I posted an opinion on this issue Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Off-wiki_.28email.29_legal_threat today. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Some words of comfort
I know that RfA can be a bit of a harrowing experience. Don't worry. You're doing fine, as usual. Soon you'll be a made Wikipedian. Then, nobody will be able to whack you without talking to Jimbo first. Of course, in talk page posts, you'll need to start using such phrases as "fuggedaboutit" and "What did I just say?" :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- ?!?! I didn't know I'd have to change all of my lingo! Although I was strongly considering starting every discussion post with, "Don't you know who I am?" :) Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- ROFL!! Ha ha ha ha ha. Nice! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Time for a "Double" Reward...
Though I will still ask whenever I need to, the following should help you on your way to becoming an Administrator...
Cookies! | ||
CHAK 001 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I shall award this user, Qwyrxian, not only for good communication, but also good work with other users. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}! |
The Special Barnstar | ||
This reward is given to Qwyrxian, for the great accomplishments in dealing with problems at my talk page (those are now archived). I have, under my determination, that Qwyrxian has explained the appropriate polices if I attempted to create something that may be out of hand for some users. Not only Qwyrxian deserves more cookies, but Qwyrxian also deserves a great accomplishment. CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 08:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks, Chak. If you ever need help, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
RfA
"I doubt any amount of arguing here is going to change Axl's !vote."
Right! Best wishes and good luck in your new role. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Date format
Hi! You might notice the recent edits on Sea of Japan naming dispute. See User talk:Oda Mari#Dates on Sea of Japan naming dispute. I thought the article used MDY. I checked the edit history. It was this edit when a date first appeared in the article and it was corrected at this edit. When you rewrote the article, the date in the body of article was MDY and the ref. dates were mixture of MDY and DMY. [1] Then you changed the date format of ref. to DMY like this one. I think that made me confused. I think it should be back to MDY as the very first edit used MD. I was told "follow the first use" when I tried to change BCE/CE to BC/AD in an article. Besides, I'm accustomed to BC/AD and DMY as most of Japan related articles use them, and honestly speaking I personally like them. But should I leave the date format alone as it is? I'd like to know your explanation and opinion, BTW, I think it should be included in the lead that when the dispute begun. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with date consistency; as far as I read MOS:DATEUNIFY, the entire article should be consistent, and the references should be consistent, although the two sets don't have to be identical. Whenever I add a date/accessdate in refs, I always use DMY, but that's just because the ref pop-up helper uses that format automatically for accessdate. Now, deciding between the two is more difficult, since the "national ties" argument in MOS doesn't work, since both Korea and Japan use YMD, but that format isn't allowed. So, between MDY or DMY, I don't really care; if you say that most articles related to Japan use MDY, that's as good a reason as any. For BC/AD...well, part of me hates the idea of imposing a Christian-centered date method on non-Christian countries, but then again I found out just a few months ago that none of my Japanese colleagues had even heard of CE/BCE format. Do you know which one they use in Korea?
- In general, you're right that we should go with the first format (date order and era naming) unless 1) it was always a mess, or 2) there is a good solid rationale for switching and you can get consensus on talk to switch. So if you raise the issue on talk, I'll definitely support the switch to DMY and BC/AD. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, congratulations! I will ask the editor who changed the format if he would mind to change it back. I don't know which format is used in Korea. But at here, I saw CE/BCE is used in many Korean-related articles. As for BC/AD, the Meiji government adopted it as a Western calender, a global standard, and Japan has been using BC/AD. Not that it was imposed. In fact, I didn't know CE/BCE format either till I came to WP. It's only a few years ago. When I saw someone said something like "Japan is not a Christian country. So it should be better to use CE/BCE", I was surprised and thought I didn't know BC/AD was only for Christians. And to me, it is a some kind of discrimination to sort out Christian from non-Christian. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I was asked to comment here, and I have the following points to make:
- An article's prose and references can indeed be different as long as they are internally consistent.
- References are allowed to be in YMD format, per MOS:DATEUNIFY, and if the consensus is to change the references to YMD per WP:STRONGNAT, I don't see a problem there.
- If the references are changed to YMD, I have no preference for either MDY or DMY in the prose; my only issue is that the use of both MDY and DMY in the same article seemed odd and unexpected.
- No instances of BC/AD or BCE/CE exist in the article, so DATERET shouldn't be a problem there (yet).
- --Gyrobo (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, I was asked to comment here, and I have the following points to make:
- First of all, congratulations! I will ask the editor who changed the format if he would mind to change it back. I don't know which format is used in Korea. But at here, I saw CE/BCE is used in many Korean-related articles. As for BC/AD, the Meiji government adopted it as a Western calender, a global standard, and Japan has been using BC/AD. Not that it was imposed. In fact, I didn't know CE/BCE format either till I came to WP. It's only a few years ago. When I saw someone said something like "Japan is not a Christian country. So it should be better to use CE/BCE", I was surprised and thought I didn't know BC/AD was only for Christians. And to me, it is a some kind of discrimination to sort out Christian from non-Christian. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats
... in being an admin. Unfortunately, Magog the Ogre will still be my favourite admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I got mis-quoted in the ANI about CANVASSing. I sarcastically said I felt offended when a certain party did not invite me for opportunities to cast a vote when STSC and Lvhis were both invited (wtf? inviting Lvhis and not me?!). I suppose I'd have to say ambiguity in noun-pronoun attachment is to blame, although I am very sure I've been quite unambiguous in my use of pronouns in that case. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- The trouble is, Bob, that people are unable to detect sarcasm over teh internet because so much of the sarcastic intent is carried by tone of voice. It's best to use fake wiki mark-up so your intent is clear. For example: <sarcasm>I think George Bush was a great president.</sarcasm> Regards, --Diannaa (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's as sacrilegious as doing <joke>[Insert joke here]</joke>. I'd much rather be mis-quoted here than desecrating my wonderful sarcastic comments. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I decided to take your advice after all (at least for a limited set of occasions). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's as sacrilegious as doing <joke>[Insert joke here]</joke>. I'd much rather be mis-quoted here than desecrating my wonderful sarcastic comments. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That was a pretty good response [2]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Clarification request
Hey, Qwyrxian. Your response to Keepscases's question was somewhat vague to me; are you saying that it's related to something that you're involved in outside of Wikipedia? An aspect of your personal life? Does his question have any connection to Wikipedia whatsoever? Just to be clear, I'm not trying to 'dig', I'm just trying to gauge the question itself. Clarification would be appreciated. Swarm X 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless the point of the question was to see how well I understood WP:OUTING, it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia whatsoever. But as you know (as a regular RFA voter), many of Keepscases questions are, for all intents and purposes, entirely unrelated to Wikipedia (each of those 3 "answers" I gave was to a past Keepscases question). The question xe posed to me, however, is a reference to work that can be found on another internet site under the same name as my username here. That particular site, assuming its connected to me, doesn't contain any personally identifiable information. The problem is that for me to actually explain the meaning of that site (as the question requires), I'd have to reveal some personal details; those details could then conceivably be used to do more internet searches which would in turn likely point to things that do come very close to identifying me personally. I almost answered the question anyway; everything I do online is done with the presumption that it will one day be found be prospective employers, friends, family, etc., so I have a pretty clean internet presence...but I figure I oughtn't make it too easy for someone on WP with a grudge to drag the rest of my life up. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Alright. Sounds like Keeps just being Keeps. His questions are generally given a pass because they're harmless and humorous. This had the appearance of stalkerish behavior and an attempt to bring unrelated aspects of your personal life into an RfA, which is utterly inappropriate, but since you seem completely unbothered by it I assume it's NBD. Thank you, and my congrats on your RfA. Swarm X 05:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
No respect or understanding of chess problems
You quoted WP:SPOILER when reverting my change, which used the {{HiddenMultiLine}} template to "hide" the solution the single Polgar chess problem in the article. I think that is so inappropriate! For several reasons.
- SPOILER talks about deleting info from an article. I deleted nothing.
- SPOILER says "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work [...] that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may 'spoil' the experience for any reader who learns details of the plot in this way rather than in the work itself." For a chess problem, the problem IS the "work itself"! So what would the phrase "rather than" in the just-quoted sentence refer to or apply to? (Answer: Nothing.) So what SPOILER is describing, does not fit here. (It is not the same. It does not apply.)
- Logically, if you were *right* about your revert, then you should have a problem on the larger scale, about the template {{HiddenMultiLine}}. Logically to you, that template should not exist, for it it is always in violation of SPOILER. But the chess community disagrees with that, or the template wouldn't exist! If you want to back up your revert, then let's see you support an RfD for the template!
- For an article to get to FA status, it has to be at least somewhat enjoyable to read. The Polgar problem is a chess problem for Christ's sake! (In fact, I was reading the Polgar article myself for my own enlightenment and enjoyment. When I came across the 2-mover, I was excited to try and solve it, since Polgar was only FOUR YEARS OLD when she composed that problem. So I thought I could find the answer quite easily, but, it was taking more seconds to do so than I first predicted it would! And the point is, I got the idea to "hide" the solution, because having it staring at me bug-eyed in the face, while trying to avoid looking at it, was a big nuisance. [In fact, what I did was, fire-up my Microsoft calculator, because I knew it "floats" over anything else, and I floated it over the printed solution, so it would no longer distract me as I continued working the problem. That is how and why I had idea to use the template to cover the answer - so other readers, like myself, wouldn't be distracted should they decide out of curiosity or fun, to work the problem while reading the article.])
Don't you think your arbitrary enforcement of SPOILER was a rather shallow, "fire-from-the-hip" reaction? (Because I certainly do.) The fact that you misinterpret policy to make a destructive revert with impunity as you did, makes me wonder if you have a "value rules above all else"-type personality. (If so then join the army!)
Your decision to revert in this case was, for me, clearly shallowly thought out, and dead wrong. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I quoted the relevant portion of WP:Spoiler on the talk page; in short, not only does that guideline say that we can't delete info to avoid spoiling info, we also don't use disclaimers or other methods to hide the info. This is a long established, site wide guideline. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS a local group (say, those interested in Chess articles, or a wikiproject if there is one) cannot override site-wide policies and guidelines. I happen to agree with the guideline, as well--I don't believe any information on Wikipedia should be hidden, because it's an inevitable slippery slope ("This movie isn't interesting at all if you know the end"..."Giving this info makes it too easy to beat this video game"..."This info is offensive to my religion"...). We're not a site for entertainment of individuals: we provide information. Finally, your point about the template is misplaced--it could well be that the template is basically designed only for use only outside of article-space. As a similar example, WP:MOS explicitly forbids the use of decorative quotations in articles, but we have a template, Template:cquote that exists specifically to do just that (it's the one that puts big blue quotes around block quotes). Why do we have it? Because it's useful in many articles in Wikipedia-space, like policies and guidelines. Now, if you still think I'm wrong, I'll stop reverting, and we can find a way to handle the dispute via dispute resolution. Maybe we can start with a Third opinion, if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, at least I got you willing to pause (not revert and enter Talk). User Torchiest pointed out something I didn't see before: "Both WP:COLLAPSE and WP:Spoiler are guidelines, not policies, and both lead with the disclaimer that reasonable exceptions can be made." And he believed what I was doing was reasonable to both. I think user Novangelis was quite brilliant when he observed: "The concealment, in this case, is content."
- Anyway, you scared the pants off me, because of the degree of strictness you wanted to use when interpreting the relevant policy. (Have you seen the noticeboard results so far?) Can I ask you if this modifies in any way, your already-expressed stance on the issue? (I imagine yes.) Also, Elen scared me 100 percent more than you did, she seemed to be equally strict, but wanted to bully me and threaten me, too. She was very glib suggesting my position was so bad that I should "revert [myself]". Please, if you become an Admin, be less brittle! (And what about Elen? Will the noticeboard results coming in, even make her pause in her sense of infallibility? She was quite a bully, except for opening the noticeboard item on my behalf. [But even then, the way she framed the issue, was condescending toward me, saying she only needed "someone else besides her" to set me straight.] What amazing EGO.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Specifically too, I wanted to thank you for this: "Now, if you still think I'm wrong, I'll stop reverting, and we can find a way to handle the dispute via dispute resolution. Maybe we can start with a Third opinion, if you like." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- You ought to join in the discussion at the noticeboard. WP:3RR is a bright line - you have to stop and discuss, and you were about to go over it. Persuasion is always better - with a very few exceptions, guidelines can be modified if you don't try to barge straight through them with armorial bolloques. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I "was about to go over it"? Do you see into the future? I was well aware how many times I reverted, well aware of 3RR. All the counsel directed toward me here and on AN/I is misplaced. Save it, please. You say "persuasion is always better", but I'm sorry Elen, I find that particularly hypocritical seeing you: 1) reverted my edit even after a consensus discussion had been already initiated on Talk, then 2) put a block threat on my Talk page after your revert. And I didn't see any positive contribution by you in the consensus discussion, only repeated demeaning "no".
- For the fith or sixth time, please stop with the messages to my attention. I'm more than tired by the consisent condescension and baiting. Please go away and leave me alone! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- You ought to join in the discussion at the noticeboard. WP:3RR is a bright line - you have to stop and discuss, and you were about to go over it. Persuasion is always better - with a very few exceptions, guidelines can be modified if you don't try to barge straight through them with armorial bolloques. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Qwy, if I post here on your Talk w/ a question, it's meant for you, not somebody else, just so you know. You didn't respond, yet meanwhile Elen comes in, leaves me more unwanted comments. Question: Do the two of you function like a "tag-team" in a wrestling match? Does she follow your activity and back you up on issues unrelated to her own editorship? After you reverted me at Susan Polgar, in swooped Elen to revert me also, threaten me with block, followed by making unhelpful contributions on Talk:Susan Polgar. It seems a mutual-support association from her-to-you undeniable, and, I question it's value, as it's quite left a negative impression on me, a relatively new editor on WP. (It's frustrating to attempt a discussion with you, with Elen inserting herself. If you wished, I'm sure you could discuss the matter with her. Have you? It's none of my business of course, but, I think a pattern is clear, and it's fostered this comment. Did she contribute anything special to the Susan Polgar topic? Or was her involvement just a "no" with added sparks generated?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is going to be a really long answer, because I want to try to explain both the specific situation and more general concerns.
- I can't speak for Elen, but I can tell you about how I work, and thus make guesses about how she works. First, as far as I know, no, Elen of the Roads has never worked on Susan Polgar before. That, in and of itself doesn't mean anything though, because any editor is free to edit any article at any time (barring weird things like topic bans). Second, I can verify that I did not ask Elen to come help on the article, so tag teaming does not apply (that term, at least as far as its used on Wikipedia, specifically refers to when two or more editors explicitly coordinate their actions; see WP:Tag team for more info. However, I can guess that I know what happened. Many long term editors like myself keep the user/user talk pages of other editors on our watchlist. I just checked, and I have over 900 user pages on my watchlist. Now, the vast majority of those are editors I'll never interact with again, or who may never even edit again--they get added automatically whenever I warn someone for vandalism, or welcome them, for instance, and I only clean up that part of my watchlist every few months. Other people are on my watchlist because I had a conversation on their talk page, and I never took it off. However, some I keep on my watchlist because they are editors I have interacted with positively and helpfully in the past, and I'm interested in what they might do in the future. So, for example, I keep Elen of the Roads talk page on my watchlist, and probably will keep it indefinitely. Sometimes, I see her (or anyone else I'm watching) having problems, and sometimes I try to help. In this case, my guess is that Elen saw you and I having a problem, and in this case there was a specific guideline that seemed to pretty clearly apply. Thus, just like any editor can do, she decided to edit the page in a way that she thought best. Note that this wasn't to assist me, but (I assume) to do what she thought was necessary to make the encyclopedia better. That is, sometimes I see a wikifriend of mine having problems, and when I go to look at the situation, I actually side with the other person. Really, it's no different than if Elen had just happened upon the article by seeing the edits pop up on Recent Changes. So, no, we weren't tag teaming, and yes, she was justified in editing the article to revert you if she felt (like I did) that what you were doing was not in the best interests of the article. Furthermore, I believe that she was completely justified in giving you a 3RR warning, because you didn't seem to understand that once more than one person disagrees with your change, it's your responsibility to go to the article's talk page and discuss it before trying to force your version through on the article (i.e., edit warring). This process is called Bold, Revert, Discuss, and, while not policy, is a pretty standard way of editing on Wikipedia.
- Here's my advice--when you change articles, sometimes, people are going to object. When you add stuff to articles, maybe the same day, maybe weeks or months later, someone else may remove it or change it. When they do so, it usually isn't out of malice--rather, it's simply because they disagree with the change you've made, or they think they can make it even better. In order to edit on Wikipedia, you have to be able to deal with that, and not take it personally. That doesn't mean you have to accept their change or reversal--that's why we have talk pages to hash things out, and, when that isn't enough, we have a full dispute resolution process to work through disagreements. I promise that in this case, no one was tag-teaming you; rather, you simply ran into a case where two different editors think your edit was wrong. Now, looking at the discussion we're having at on the MOS talk page, it looks like the wide community is likely to decide that they prefer your version, which is great! I have no problem with crafting an exception to the guideline, so long as that exception is widely supported. This is because I strongly believe in WP:CONLIMITED, which is to say, I strongly disagree with the attempts of some groups (usually Wikiprojects) to create walled gardens, inside of which they enforce different rules than the rest of Wikipedia. Exceptions are great, but those exceptions can't be crafted entirely by the in-group. But I also accept that my interpretations of guidelines are not always consistent with the communities, and, when that is the case, I'm happy to bow to community consensus.
- I hope this way-too-long answer helps allay some of your concerns. Again, while I can't speak for Elen, I will say that in my experience, she's one of the nicest, most conscientious members of Wikipedia, with both a great grasp of policy/the community as well as a great ability to interact with people on a personal level. I hope that this event hasn't at all soured your experience with Wikipedia--someone mentioned elsewhere that you're doing really great and helpful work on chess-related articles, so your input is greatly appreciated. Let me know if you have more questions or concerns, about this issue or anything else. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian, your reply is really quite irritating. I sincerely guess and think that you believe you are being responsive and helpful in your reply, but you shouldn't, because in reality I'm finding 80-85 percent what you wrote very irritating, very unhelpful. (It even opens up a new issue which didn't exist previously, namely, your justification of Elen's 3RR block threat on my Talk - which totally shocks me that you would support that act, making me think you must not have your facts right.) For example, asserting Elen has "good people skills" - when what she did regarding me was: put me in an unnecessary 3RR bind, threaten me against WP guideline, contribute nothing but sparks to the Polgar Talk consensus discussion, suggest I "revert [myself]" there, define the issue at AN/I in a superior and condescending tone, falsely accuse and bait me at the AN/I, and bait me further by calling me an unwarranted familiar name ("pet") twice. (Elen may indeed have great people skills, but, I wasn't on the receiving end this time.) Like I said, I want to respond more fully time-permitting (you and I are busy w/ other things now). So you can have a clue why 80-85 percent what you wrote is irritating and unhelpful, because I honestly don't think you are aware. (But one thing I expressly will not tolerate, is Elen coming in here to chime now, or at any point, as she has shown to be apt to do. There is already enough chaos. [Thx for your presumed support on that, should she attmept.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC) p.s. I hope you're not offended by my oppose vote. (No offense intended.)
- Hi Q. Despite Ihardlythinkso attempting to ban me from your talkpage (LOL), you are right, I was trying to help. The ultimate outcome - the RfC on what to do with puzzle solutions - is the right one I think. I share your concern about walled gardens (and the concern of others about slippery slopes, given some of the intense battles there have been in the past over hiding content that was offensive to one party or another), but if the community agrees a tight definition change, then I have no problem with that of course. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso: absolutely no offense taken at your oppose vote; in fact, your concern has had me thinking for the last few days if there was some way I could have handled this differently from the start. I still think that my removal and comments were correct, but I wonder if there was some way that I could have explained myself better or in a different place so that this wouldn't have gotten so antagonistic. I also wish that my above comment hadn't been 80-85% irritating...I'm struggling here, because I really am not sure how to shape what I'm saying in a way that won't irritate you, because I actually don't (myself) see what was irritating in that comment. I don't understand why you felt that Elen pointing out to you our policy was wrong; do you think its better if people don't explain our policies and guidelines to editors who seem not to know them? Do you think we need to communicate them in some other way? Was it the very act of notification that was a problem, or the phrasing that she used (which is our standard 3RR template)? If continuing this conversation or answering these questions makes you more upset, please feel free to decline, but if you wish, I am absolutely happy to hear if there is something which I/Wikipedia can do better to make interactions like this less painful for all involved?
- Qwyrxian, I wish you would have honored my two requests, but, you ignored both of them. The first request was to be patient, until I had a chance to responsd to your over-long paragraph more fully. Now you have tried to address what you believe the issues might be, asked more questions, etc. Bad. Please respect what I asked you. You are only confusing things and compounding complexity by adding things and not letting me reply to your original post. Please stop it. The second request you ignored, was my request to keep Elen OUT of this dialogue. I am talking to you, not her. I do not want to have anything to do with her, and I want her to have nothing to do with me. If she has something she wants to communmicate to you or with you, she can open up her own section on your Talk. I specifically asked to keep her out of this section. So what does she do? Next day, she comes in here, acknowledges the request to keep out of here, then adds her post here. I don't care the content of her post, the fact is, she intentionally chimed in here, when she knew I didn't like it or want it, and asked your support to keep her out. Did you give me any support? You ignored my request. Why did you ignore my request? Elen has and is irritating me, and she seems to not control herself from doing it, just for spite. She knows she irritates me. So to come here intentionally and post, when asked not to, is baiting and harassing. Why don't you talk with her? You see the irritation she has caused, you see the complaints and requests of mine to solicit your help to stop her from butting in. Yet you do nothing. And you say to me: "I am absolutely happy to hear if there is something which I/Wikipedia can do better to make interactions like this less painful for all involved?" The answer is yes, and obvious, and already answered: please help keep Elen out of this dialogue with you. (If you are going to give me answer, that all WP editors can edit anywhere, and there are no such controls, I already know that, save your breathe. This is about courtesy [does WP have any policies on that?????????] and respect. So please don't give reply whereby I have to think you are intentionally being cute or slow. This post by me is 10 times longer than it has to be. But I find myself repeating and repeating to you, because nothing seems to sink in. Please give me a break and listen when I write something, and stop with the cascade of responses to imagined points. What I would like to do is IGNORE your last post, so that I can still RESPOND to your over-long paragraph, as originally asked, as originally planned. Ok? And I cannot do that, if Elen cannot be controlled, if she continues to come in here. (She apparently cannot control herself, for whatever reason. That is why I asked for you to speak with her and support my request, and ask her to respect my request.) The combination/tag-team Qwyrxian-Elen, I've had my fill. I want it to end please. At least with me. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies; I do not see in your message where you told me not to say anything; you simply said you want to respond more, which is what I was inviting you to do; my reply was not meant to cut you off. I'll post nothing more here until you ask me to, Ihardlythinkso. As for Elen, I'll leave a note on her talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I could have been clearer. I said: "I want to respond more fully time-permitting (you and I are busy w/ other things now)." Sorry I wasn't clearer. I appreciate your attention, but we have disagreements and as soon-to-be Admin, I'd like to ask you about them. But one thing per time. (My followup might include clarifying Qs for you, and if you go on ahead using supposed points and making further comments, it adds confusion & complexity.)
- I appreciate you finally talking to Elen. I really do. You are improving my faith in the civility of WP by doing so.
- p.s. For time-being, due to the mushroom cloud developed out of the policy fuss, and especially the stuff sent my way from Elen, I've lost all interest in the little chess problem "hide"/"show" techinque. You guys have worn me out. I no longer care what happens. I'm out. No further comment. Good luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
ANI
There is presently a discussion going on at ANI regarding Indian caste articles. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah...I've read the whole thing, and started a response twice; both times cancelling it after I realized I wasn't really adding anything beyond what others have said, and I'm not really any more independent than you or MV are. The problem is that the issue is far too complicated for the free-for-all of ANI; ArbCom really is the way to go, but I'm not sure we've exhausted our other DR options. However, one possibility is that it might be appropriate because the issue ranges across so many articles. Arbcom, also, is an awful lot of work. But it seems pretty likely to me that this issue is just as contentious (because of real world issues) as PI, British Isles, or Climate change, so it seems like, if not now, eventually it needs to be treated like them (i.e., under Discretionary Sanctions). If you think we're going to go there eventually, one important thing to do is to keep evidence--you don't need full details, but make sure you at least have links to all of the discussions that you think are relevant. Also, be sure you keep a copy of any off-wiki info you find, in case that's later taken down (like the $12,000 payment (btw, was that INR? BP? USD?)).
- I may still comment on the ANI thread, if something particularly useful occurs to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Cheers
Thanks for putting up that RfC. It's rare that I can discuss something I actually have great knowledge of like this, but I believe I have presented my views better there than in many other places I've commented on Wikipedia. I'll see what others think in the morning. CycloneGU (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. If the community decides that this is a reasonable exception I have no problem with that; I know that it's a potential WP:BEANS issue to write the exception directly into the guidelines, but even if we decide not to, if the consensus is clear on the talk page, at least it will be there for reference for future disputes. I suppose I should add my opinion (basically, copied from the Polgar talk page), but I figured I'd wait a bit before doing so. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was about to write something in prior to this RfC being started, but I could not figure out the wording and decided I'd come back later to think about it again. Your RfC came in between, so it works perfectly and gets a discussion going about it. Definitely need to find a way to accommodate this, the editor who originally started making this change at Susan Polgar has been very active in the chess Wikiproject and made a number of great changes. CycloneGU (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
A cup of Tea for You!
Dear Qwyrxian, You are always very polite, even if You have to answer massive amount of queries from the less experienced Users; I have observed that You never get frustrated. You are truely a Gentleman. I wish You Lots of Luck for the Adminship. Thanks! Abstruce (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC) |
A Quote for You:
"In a day, when You don't come across any problems- You can be sure that You are traveling in a wrong path." - SWAMI VIVEKANANDA
Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! That quote is good advice for Wikipedia, but probably even better for my real life. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Prod error
Hi, You did not prod tag properly Environmental issues in Chandigarh Capital Region.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whoops...that's embarrassing. I specifically didn't use Twinkle so that there was no notification...but I failed to type the right code in the process. It would be totally great if the interface had some sort of feature where you could see what your new addition will look like before you actually post it...almost like a "preview"...hey, whats that button down here........... 00:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do you mean the button marked "Preview" ? ;) I needed some light relief: was absolutely fed up of the antics of Yogesh Khande today, spread across numerous areas, although I did manage a massive overhaul of Cash-for-votes scandal overnight. That, at least, is now both neutral and complete ... until the story moves on. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
STOP harassing me with words like "forbidden," etc.
Stop it! You cannot--i repeat, CANNOT--stifle the open process of people's voicing their concerns about you on the nomination page. You can't forbid me from informing others about this process just so that you can attempt to protect the exhibition of inevitable opposition against your nomination for the administrative position.
Should you continue to do so, I'll muster the effort to have your nomination process redone because your actions are tainting the instant one.
In fact, altogether, if you are going to make up policy--like that I'm forbidden from doing what I'm clearly able to do--stop leaving such non-Wikipedia-promulgated messages on my talk page. Understand? I know you're in Japan, but I don't speak Japanese, so I'm sincerely hoping you can understand EVERY word that I'm saying in English. ("Use GOOGLE translation to translate this." TRANSLATING THIS GOOGLE TRANSLATION SUGGESTION IN OTHER WORDS (Japanese Translation): このを翻訳するには、Google翻訳を使用して)(Correction Made, Per Diannnaaa's observation)
Your cooperation would be appreciated, and take care! Diligent007 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CANVASS is a real policy. If you were to persist in leaving messages for people saying "go vote against Q now", you would find that you weren't able to do it, because you would have been blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, but Elen, you see, I did not do so! I invited one to either support or oppose, and, hence, I was not blocked. Yet, in spite of the fact that I have offered just the opportunity for others to chime in, Qwyrxian has falsely made it seem as I have actually specifically sought people to oppose Qwyrxian. In this respect, his application of the above policy is misplaced and, in effect, such a manipulated policy became one of Qwyrxian's own, and that's the real issue here. Diligent007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Writing "Go fuck yourself" in Japanese on this page is unacceptable behaviour, Diligent007. You could be blocked for that type of behavior. Please read the material at WP:CANVASS as well. You were attempting to influence the outcome of the RFA discussion by notifying specific people who you thought would oppose the RFA, and this type of behaviour is considered disruptive, and is not permitted under the canvassing rule. This message is being copied onto Diligent007's talk page. --Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to delete that part before posting on Wikipedia. I was just playing around on Google translation to see how it would look, and did not remove that last part when copying and pasting--it's my first time using that system (and had I known to read the Japanese lettering afterwards, I would have noticed that, but I didn't.)
- Writing "Go fuck yourself" in Japanese on this page is unacceptable behaviour, Diligent007. You could be blocked for that type of behavior. Please read the material at WP:CANVASS as well. You were attempting to influence the outcome of the RFA discussion by notifying specific people who you thought would oppose the RFA, and this type of behaviour is considered disruptive, and is not permitted under the canvassing rule. This message is being copied onto Diligent007's talk page. --Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, but Elen, you see, I did not do so! I invited one to either support or oppose, and, hence, I was not blocked. Yet, in spite of the fact that I have offered just the opportunity for others to chime in, Qwyrxian has falsely made it seem as I have actually specifically sought people to oppose Qwyrxian. In this respect, his application of the above policy is misplaced and, in effect, such a manipulated policy became one of Qwyrxian's own, and that's the real issue here. Diligent007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make the overt action of removing it now. Thanks for taking the time to translate and proofread the message, DiannaaDiligent007 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your behavior surrounding the discussion of Q's candidacy has been wholly unacceptable. And, ironically enough, your stridency, and Q's moderation in the face of it, was one reason for my support of his candidacy. LHM 19:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget Wiki-Love for Diligent007 and his sock. lol --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yehhhh...I think I'll decline to throw gasoline on that fire. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Wondering...
I wonder which of us will be the first to reach WP:100? You started earlier, then I passed you, and you then caught up with me, and now we've been slowly creeping up tied! :) We are currently tied at 94, so are there any guessers? ;) Good luck with your new job when you do pass! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I didn't think I was going to make it--with so little time to go, I thought I'd be stuck in the high nineties. But it looks like while I was answering the two last minute questions, I've just now hit 100. Which reminds me, time to go support yours; I've been planning to do so, but thought I'd wait until mine is done/nearly done. Good luck to you, too, and hopefully you won't have to encounter a "paroxysm of tecnhicolor hyper-drama" :).Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well good luck! Looks like you beat me by 12 minutes! :P Fortunately, I don't seem to have run into any drama and canvassing; I only had 4chan attacks on my RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that note about 4chan on your RfA itself; what did you do to piss off 4chan? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably by sending vandals to AIV and tagging silly pages for speedy deletion. Congratulations on becoming an administrator too! Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I saw that note about 4chan on your RfA itself; what did you do to piss off 4chan? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well good luck! Looks like you beat me by 12 minutes! :P Fortunately, I don't seem to have run into any drama and canvassing; I only had 4chan attacks on my RFA. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:BEFORE question
Thanks for answering my question given that there was so little time left in the discussion. I'm surprised you answered it so thoroughly! I was aware of the Village pump discussion of the matter, and I've often brought it up to (long-time) editors who prematurely nominate AfDs. There's at least one individual who continues to do this because he wants others to clean-up the articles in a WP:BURDEN fashion.
Anyway, it looks like you are in the clear for adminship. Let me offer you a round of applause! *clap clap clap!* I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Early Congrats
It's 'Pending Closure...' but I wanted to say congrats early since I can't imagine an abundance of editors coming in tonight to oppose. Let me know if there is any indefing Jimbo or deleting the main page in the works, I wanna be there to watch.--v/r - TP 02:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
MOS
I've been known to oppose illogic when it relates to the MOS, so I'm no purveyor of the MOS as god. But you didn't answer where in the MOS it states you can't wikilink a slogan . . . to what is apparently an article about the use of the slogan, including a well researched though unsourced list of TV stations using the slogan. I don't have a dog in this fight, other than to see this constant edit warring going on. I trace the link, and there's a real article about the real subject. It is appropriate linking and back to my prime directive here, it aids in passing knowledge. Why prevent that? Why do you go out of your way to forcibly prevent the passing of this knowledge, TV history? This minor, minor technicality, this MOS issue you seem to have with a wikilink, is not even at the level of a misspelled word, much less a specific technical noun in an article. People come to wikipedia to learn. We edit to help them learn about what we know. I also read to learn what I don't know fully. Wikilinks serve to direct us all to further information. They are good things. And as I quote on my user page "Knowledge is good." Why is that your enemy? Why do you spend so much time preventing knowledge from being passed? Your motives and effort to hide information, perhaps even (I haven't looked) to delete information, seriously scares me. Those are not the becoming qualities I want in a person with so much authority as an administrator. Trackinfo (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to prevent the information from being passed, I'm trying to do two things: 1) revert this disruptive editor consistently and regularly, hoping against hope that eventually they will stop making these highly dubious additions or at least, for once, talk to someone about what they're doing and 2) prevent the actual title of the show from being changed from what it really is. Maybe, because this isn't actually a quotation, maybe I'm wrong to view it the way I have been. I accept that. Since no one ever disagreed until now, I naturally assumed that my edits were alright. Now that you've mentioned you disagree, I'll wait until either you agree or until a consensus somewhere says either way. However, I will say that I don't accept the principle that our goal is always to keep information. By that logic, we would never remove any information from any of our articles; but we do--we exercise good editorial judgment, remove unsourced information, and, in this case, make sure information follows our style guide (with the possibility for exceptions, of course). I'm happy to raise the issue at WT:MOS; I think I'll need to do that later as I only have a short time before I have to go away from Wikipedia for a while and I have a few things to deal with first. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Votestacking
Hello and congratulations on your impending administratorship,
The canvassing and attempted votestacking are very instructive. This episode shows that canvassing "works" in that it can motivate a handful of predisposed editors to take an action when they get a selective message. It also shows, that in a high-visibility case like an RfA, it "doesn't work" because there of lots of eyes trained on the process. I will remember this, and I hope and trust that you will too, because similar scenarios play out all the time in less visible areas of this encyclopedia. Canvassing violates our standards whether five people are involved or two hundred. I wish you well. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Or even one, perhaps.... like this edit, from an editor that I have reason to believe (see end of page) is well aware aware of the rules on canvassing, which was successful in producing this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and this !vote and possibly some others but I think that is quite enough. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
here it comes
You;re gonna be an admin. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations
You handled all the RfA drama quite well, considering some of it was so personally directed. You'll make a good admin, especially from what I saw at the RfA. Regards, First Light (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Your RfA…
…has exhibited a consensus among members of the English Wikipedia project to allow you access to the administrator maintenance tool-set; congratulations! Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the tools, there are a host of pages geared for new admins, and also hop over to Meta to learn how to get access to the wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel should you so desire. Also, please take advantage of the constructive criticism you were offered through the oppositions, and use that to become a better volunteer member of our great project. Thank you for volunteering; now I hear there is a clean-up on aisle 4. You can get your mop on the way . -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good work Qwyrxian. jorgenev 05:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, and a thank you to everyone (though I suppose I shall be setting about thankspamming now...hey, maybe a good way to make use of Wikilove?). I will absolutely take into account the concerns of other users on my RfA, and I'm actually going to follow up with a couple of them individually regarding their concerns. <joke>Right after I go block every POV pushing opponent I've ever had/currently have in every debate, fully lock a few articles in the obviously correct state, and plaster my victory message across the main page.</joke> Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Qwyrxian! And thanks for the nice personalized thanks :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Magic Janitor Powers
⚖ Enchanted T-Shirt Uniform of the Janitorial Cabal ⚖ | |
Good job. I'm sure you will use it well. Don't forget, the shirt will turn blue when there's a heavy CSD backlog. --Σ talkcontribs 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Congratulations on becoming an administrator
Congratulations!!! You stayed so cool, we could have put you in a salad and called you cucumber. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Congrats, nice to see the Streisand Effect still works . I see you've already got your uniform issue T-shirt. Mjroots (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats as well!--NortyNort (Holla) 08:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful comments in your post-RFA message. If ever need anything, let me know. Best regards, Steven Walling • talk 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Everyone's OPPORTUNITY to either oppose or support Qwyrxian in his bid to become an administrator...
... is now OVER. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, this one specifically I have to respond to. Be careful with that wit, Demiurge1000; when I laugh out loud at work, sometimes people stare. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Administrator Achievement
This is a great time when every user that sees your page wants to comment on your work. As a result of your overwhelming good responses, I am giving you more Barnstars for your new achievement. This time, three of them are yours!
The Original Barnstar | ||
The fine work has lead me to award Qwyrxian with this barnstar. |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
The hard work of yours relating to demonstrating anti-vandalism with some assistance gives you this barnstar. |
The Special Barnstar | ||
Finally, on top of the above, this special barnstar awards you for your upgrade to administrative status. CHAK 001 (Improvements? Please let me know!) 07:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you very much!!!!
Thank you very much to everyone for your congratulations!!! And if you participated in the RfA but didn't get thankspam from me, my apologies, but thank you for your participation.
Okay, lets get out that checklist:
- Open RfA Done
- Respond to questions Done
- Deal with paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama Done
- Send thankspam Done
- Vandalize main page
- Block everyone who ever opposed me or failed to see my utter genius
- Vandalize Navbox so that my name appears across millions of pages
Meh...I'm plum tuckered out after 1-4...I'll have to put the others on my long term to-do list. ps #5-7 are a joke. don't worry, be happy.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well done. You were exemplary in the face of unfortunate and unacceptable behaviour by someone who obviously holds a grudge. You'll make a fine admin. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- #5 should be Delete main page. =D
- Sorry I could not participate, our power was out for over a day and I didn't get back here. CycloneGU (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Re:
You have my appreciation for your thanks in my talk page →. --Lvhis (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
...and also congratulations on the RfA
The Purple Barnstar | ||
As I was perusing Barnstars looking for one to give to a coder, I stumbled upon this one, and thought "Wow, I know just the user to give this to". For enduring a vicious and unethical episode of ugliness in your RfA and triumphing over said ugliness, I give you this. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
A beer for you!
Cheers to your successful RFA bid. Best wishes, Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
Good practice
Hey, can you put a small protection template on Wikipedia:New admin school/Protecting/Protect, please? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- ^^ <evil cackle>. Congrats, btw. Far more drama than there should have been but, hey, you can block me now. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Template added, unprotected, reprotected, untemplated, etc. The technical part, at least, seems relatively easy. Now for the hard part--actually deciding if something deserves protection. Think I'll re-read the relevant policy and then take a look at WP:RPP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Complaint
Hello,
I want to file a complaint against Lawrencekhoo, BigK HeX and Dark Charles. They remove sourced material and include poorly sourced material in a blatant effort to damage the integrity of the Austrian School article. They cite a bogus consensus, which doesn't exist. The issue has been bullied through before, as can be seen on the talk page. I want to know how it can be okay to gather a bunch of friends and destroy WP articles simply by reverting a real editor's work enough times that he faces the 3 revert rule. Why is this allowed, even when appeals are made for it t stop? Misessus (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to answer on the article's talk page so that other editor's can see it as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
James Tod
If you have a mo then please could you give James Tod a once-over and let me know your opinion regarding his viability as a WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Unless someone else can produce reliable sources demonstrating that the claims referenced in James Tod are wrong, Tod is definitely not a reliable source. I would fully support the removal of Tod used as a source for anything on WP. What I recommend you do is this: remove Tod when you see it. When you do so, explain on the talk page that Tod is generally considered by modern scholars of India to be unreliable and biased. Then, if someone objects, don't argue it out, take it directly to WP:RSN. Although, before you do, let me know--you'll want to phrase it properly to point out that the objection to Tod is in general, in all cases, that xe is no longer considered reliable enough for scholarly work. At best, he is only reliable when his claims can be verified by something else as corroborating evidence, in which case, we might as well just use the corroborating evidence instead of the questionable source.
- P.S.: Assuming that there's nothing major missing, that article looks awfully close to Good Article status. I'm not saying I've checked it in perfect detail, but it seems like something you could probably promote relatively easily. The easiest thing to do is submit it for WP:Peer review first, see what they say, fix it, and then go to GA. That kind of work might be a nice change from arguing all day. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion regarding RS. The issue regarding GA is there is a citation outstanding and, more important, I worry that it is over-reliant on one source (Freitag). There are not many sources for him and most of those that do exist merely repeat the same Victorian line (plagiarism was rife then, too!). I'll do a bit more digging just in case and then probably take up that peer review suggestion. It can do no harm. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've just removed Tod from Rajput clans (an article I gave fair warning on was due for a scrubbing about 3 weeks ago). Before I go any further on the article, I'm going to wait at least a few days and see if that removal "sticks". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Argh! You have just hit the big red button! Clearly, there is no messing around with you, trying it out on some less heavily dependent articles first. I realise that you have been experiencing bad situations where you live, and drama at RfA, but do you have a death wish or what? - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, I have to earn my $20K per month somehow (my backer pays extra for admins). (Seriously, TPS, it's a joke, I'm not getting paid to edit Wikipedia. If I was, I promise you, I'd do a much better and less obvious job of it). My thinking on hitting that article is 1) I already gave fair warning that people needed the sources (although I first said Tod was okay, but its clear that its not), 2) if there's a challenge there, it's actually useful, because then we can go to WP:RSN immediately and hopefully just solve the problem in a flash. I heard that sometimes being bold has benefits. Oh, speaking of inviting death threats, it's going to get worse: the way I see that article right now, nearly nothing is sourced. There's a strong chance that I'll be cutting it down to a stub...possibly even just a redirect. I mean, if we can't list all of the individual clans, because we don't have any verifiable info, why do we actually need a separate article from Rajput itself? I expect, though, that once people start noticing, I'll never get that far. And, to be honest, I'd much rather not--if someone can produce good, useful, well cited text, then we definitely should have the article. Heck, if someone can produce badly written, vaguely useful text, as long as there's a good citation, I'll do the work of shaping it into a functional, readable article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Argh! You have just hit the big red button! Clearly, there is no messing around with you, trying it out on some less heavily dependent articles first. I realise that you have been experiencing bad situations where you live, and drama at RfA, but do you have a death wish or what? - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've just removed Tod from Rajput clans (an article I gave fair warning on was due for a scrubbing about 3 weeks ago). Before I go any further on the article, I'm going to wait at least a few days and see if that removal "sticks". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion regarding RS. The issue regarding GA is there is a citation outstanding and, more important, I worry that it is over-reliant on one source (Freitag). There are not many sources for him and most of those that do exist merely repeat the same Victorian line (plagiarism was rife then, too!). I'll do a bit more digging just in case and then probably take up that peer review suggestion. It can do no harm. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.
In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.
Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.
--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Congrats!
Well done, Admin =) Ellie Dahl (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Varna discussion
Greetings. There is a discussion in Talk:Kamma_(caste). Please can you give your response there. thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ready for your First Big Challenge as an Admin.?
My name somehow was brought up in a discussion, and while that isn't the issue, MakeSense64 has asked for administrative input. CycloneGU (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any specific request for admin help. People who watch WP:COIN include both admins and non-admins, so I'm sure that others will respond. While MakeSense64's comments about you aren't particularly fair, I don't think they rise even to mild incivility (had xe accused you of a COI, that would be a problem). I have a limited familiarity with COI, and think that it would probably be better for regular editors of that board to comment. If MakeSense64 does make comments about you or anyone else there that seem to be incivil, let me know, and I'll look again, but I think that I'm not the right person for the job. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, as I noted, the comments about me weren't what I was commenting about. I saw that he had requested administrative input other than Atama on the COI case (the only one responding so far, and even recently), and knowing you had just been given the bucket you came to mind first. CycloneGU (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Rajput cleanup
Greetings, you indeed have a brass pair to take on Rajput issues! I get enough headache doing Deccan castes, but I'm tempted to join in to help you out. Among other things, I've been itching to tackle Rajput varna issues; as latecomers to the Vedic system (and given that legendarily the "true Kshatriyas" were all killed off) their Kshatriyahood was a gray process, as opposed to milleniae of history. Not at all disputing their being dang tough fighters, just saying it's important to note that their legend has a lot of political history to it.
On a related note: I see you removed the Tod list from Rajput clans. Those lists are horrid honeypots, so good call there. I debated suggesting that at least some mention of "Tod said XYZ but he's unreliable" would still be valuable somewhere, but no strong opinion. You aren't planning to delete my scanned list at 36 royal races, are you? I'd be happy to have whatever data showing Tod's unreliable, but historiographically the list is significant as a British attempt to sort this stuff out, and people keep yammering about "the list" to this day, so I'd say there's value to it being there... in a tamper-proof .jpg form. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, see I have the great benefit of not actually even knowing the difference between a Rajput and a Kamma. All I know is how to tell when information is validly sourced or not, and to recognize when information can remain in an article unsourced and when it needs sources.
- Sitush (I know you're watching, I can see you!), does Freitag have anything to say on the 36 royal races list (it sounded like you've read the whole Freitag). Some more analysis of the quality of the list would be good. Also, MV, one thing that would be a good addition to that article is if you discuss how the list has been used "historiographically", or even by groups to promote their own interests. That is, not just including criticism (well-deserved, apparently), but also including comments about the uses this list has been put to. Like, if some group relied on this list to make a big political case, and we can describe that, then the reader can better understand why this list is important historically even though its well known to be wrong. It's kind of like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion--everyone who's got half a bit of literary/analytical sense knows its balderdash, but its a critically important document simply because so many people (who don't have any sense) do treat it as viable "history". Note that I'm not comparing the content or purposes of the two docs; merely stating that the way they are used despite inaccuracies is similar, although to a different degree. As for deleting the article, that would seem wrong to me; we wouldn't ever delete, say, Almagest, despite the fact that the geocentric model that Ptolemy presents is clearly wrong. As long as the list itself is notable, it should stay. I am going to make a teensy-weensy formatting change, though. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I actually came here to thank you for the ANI issue that you have recently raised, honest! I am far too involved to start discussions such as that and, of course, I am the primary target of that group of people.
- I do not recall that Freitag examines the 36 RR (is that an extension of 3RR that I am not aware of?) in detail but it all falls under the "Tod was using old Indian texts" banner because Tod's list was not really his own. I do think that there is wriggle room for including something, somewhere about the list and that if done correctly then this could head off any future long-winded discussions at the pass. Fundamentally, it would just be linking to James Tod and repeating some content from that article in a concise manner. However, hold off on that for a couple of days because I have a 35 page critique of Tod to read that has just come to me via WP:RX. I want to go through this one thoroughly because anyone with a name like Norbert Peabody deserves my full and complete attention (plus, he went to my university & so is bound to be correct. Ahem.) - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- WP:36RR is a variation usable only by very large cabals (12 or more editors), clearly necessitating off-wiki coordination. Since that many reverts isn't really useful except when fighting another cabal, it's pretty rare in practice. As for Tod, thanks for the info; if you find something smashing in the source, everything can always change. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and you're welcome on the ANI...I was worried for a few hours that it wasn't going to go anywhere, which would have been very troublesome, since I see no question at all that that was a monumental PA....had that not been acted on, I can't imagine that we'd ever have any chance of establishing civility. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- There was no mention of the 36RR in Peabody's article (referred to above). You may not be aware but another sock of Shannon has been nuked today, using the email system to promote that thing. It looks like Mango may get away with the latest ANI report: everyone seems to be concerned about Thisthat but unaware/disinterested in Mango's activities. Oh, well, I'll just have to put up with yet more pointless wikilawyering from them. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine on Peabody, it just means there isn't something useful to add to Rajput clans. I think it would be great to have a quote that says, "While Tod is generally considered to be, well, just a tad bit clumsy and self-interested, a lot of people liked to quote his list, probably because it benefits them." Or, you know, something like that but neutral. MW is the most sophisticated of the bunch; luckily, xe also seems to be one of the most extreme POV-wise, which makes it easier to proceed. You've done the right thing on Talk:Kurmi by showing that MW has a clear stance, and one that doesn't appear to match the emerging consensus, which is fine (I don't match consensus all of the time). Ultimately though, if xe sees xyrself as victim of a grand conspiracy run by the likes of you and MV, xe'll either give up in exasperation or push too far (on or off wiki). It may take a long time, but it is inevitable ("Mr. Anderson"). What's the Shannon SPI link? I don't think I was involved in that one directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think that, as MV says, we have to find a way to finesse a sentence or two about the list, but how to do that is problematic at the moment. I have nearly finished Tod (barring a PhD thesis at Columbia University that I cannot get hold of due to lack of username/password) & so will spend a bit of time digging for something useful on the 36RR.
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shannon1488 is the link. I notified Boing of an email received off-wiki yesterday & passed to me a few hours ago by a very kind Afghan gent with whom I have had no dealings at all previously. He smelled something fishy & told MV, so I contacted & asked for a copy. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine on Peabody, it just means there isn't something useful to add to Rajput clans. I think it would be great to have a quote that says, "While Tod is generally considered to be, well, just a tad bit clumsy and self-interested, a lot of people liked to quote his list, probably because it benefits them." Or, you know, something like that but neutral. MW is the most sophisticated of the bunch; luckily, xe also seems to be one of the most extreme POV-wise, which makes it easier to proceed. You've done the right thing on Talk:Kurmi by showing that MW has a clear stance, and one that doesn't appear to match the emerging consensus, which is fine (I don't match consensus all of the time). Ultimately though, if xe sees xyrself as victim of a grand conspiracy run by the likes of you and MV, xe'll either give up in exasperation or push too far (on or off wiki). It may take a long time, but it is inevitable ("Mr. Anderson"). What's the Shannon SPI link? I don't think I was involved in that one directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was no mention of the 36RR in Peabody's article (referred to above). You may not be aware but another sock of Shannon has been nuked today, using the email system to promote that thing. It looks like Mango may get away with the latest ANI report: everyone seems to be concerned about Thisthat but unaware/disinterested in Mango's activities. Oh, well, I'll just have to put up with yet more pointless wikilawyering from them. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
List articles: hospitals and schools in India, etc.
Hello, my friend. How are all the gnarly powers working out? :)
I didn't mean to be pushy with my reply on the India etc. list articles thread. I'm just working on a different tack.
I actually intend on pruning a list, announcing it on the thread, to shift the onus. If nobody barks, I will continue.
Heck, if a list were newly-created, additions would be challenged. Somehow, the fact that a zillion IPs have dumped dubious content into them is giving the illusion of some sort of worth. I just don't see it. There has to be some measure of notability in the items. That shouldn't need consensus on each talk. If List of structures in London didn't have "notable" in the lead, it wouldn't mean that a tin shack on Buggersworth Rd. should be allowed.
Anyway, you are welcome to object. You know I respect you a great deal, and any objections you come up with can only bring the community closer to the right decision. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is that, if you wander around through Category:List of hospitals by country, you'll see that the vast majority of them have redlinked and unlinked items. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. However, if we take a look even at Category:Lists of hospitals in the United States (which subdivides into categories by state), you'll see that almost all of those also have redlinked entries; given the overall Western/US-centric bias of WP, we can assume that these lists are better watched and maintained, and even they aren't all (or even mostly) bluelinked. I'm concerned about the appearance that we're suddenly holding India to a higher standard than we hold all of these other lists. It's true that in the process of growing this toward a featured list quality, everything would eventually need to be sourced. But that seems to be over-reaching a bit. Yes, unverified challenge-able info may be removed from articles at any time...but we just want to make sure we're treading carefully and distinguishing between what is really "challenge-able" and what is just currently un-verified. Some editors, for instance, would argue that you should just AGF, through up "cn" tags on everything, and then wait for some magical future date where it's all perfect (my tone probably indicates that I don't agree with this position). At a minimum, though, I would give a good faith "warning" on the article talk page (something like "Hey, in 1 week, I'm stripping everything unsourced out of this article"). 99% odds that no one will respond, but at least there's been a little warning. If you start taking stuff out, I'm certainly not going to stop you, but I hate for you to face sudden criticism unnecessarily. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- See, this is why they made you admin. :) Good points. I'll give this one some time. See if other views come in. Mull it over. Thanks for taking the time. I know you're busy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
TV station articles - Another incommunicative editor
Sorry to overload you. Could you please advise on this IP before I act?
- 75.74.248.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
See his talk page. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your call here. To me, this is different than the slogans, because this information is verified automatically by anyone in the areas of those stations turning on their cable box and turning to the right channel. This to me falls under the category of things that don't need to be sourced, because they're "common knowledge" to anyone in the area. Now, if we had some reason to believe this information is wrong, then I'd immediately rollback all of it (let me know, I can do it in a single step, I believe) as vandalism (intentionally inserting false info). With the slogans, we're talking about things that were (allegedly) broadcast 5-50 years ago for some of those slogans, so there's no immediate way to verify them. I tried to do a quick search for one of the stations, but couldn't find anything; I'll try to check more later. If we can confirm them, I have no problem leaving them unsourced (like if what we find doesn't meet RS); if we can't find anything, we could take them out; if we confirm they are malicious/false, then it's 100% rollback and a block.
- One minor note: I can totally imagine an IP editor completely ignoring the big orange bar. "Why would I have messages? Must be for someone else".
- Oh, if this editor ever puts a single non-localized slogan, then we'll roll them all back as well since we don't trust that editor at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've got rollback too, but wouldn't dare use it in this case. Our other TV vandal is a special case.
- As for the orange bar and the "Why would I have messages? Must be for someone else".....hmmmm...maybe. Such orange bars often lead to garbage links on the net, but this guy must know this is a Wikipedia thing. It's unlikely that he hasn't clicked it and seen the messages.
- By the way, this sort of uncommunicative editor making zillions of dubious edits is not uncommon. That IP is just as notorious as our black sandbox friend. Very similar in scale, M.O., and IP and sock hopping, but a different person.
- Anyway, I will keep an eye on the articles and see if others who have local knowledge revert. That will tell us if the edits are good. Thanks again for the input. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the information and quick reply. I need the copy of the article for my personal use. I don't want to misuse the wikipedia storage space. I will store it as a text file on my computer and other storing devices. Please understand that I spent some time on this article. I may use the script for other uses. Who knows the book becomes notable by your standards some day and then I will not need to waste time to assort all the information once again. So it is my most humble request that a copy of the article may please be made available to me.
I would be most happy if a relevant warning posted on the article before deletion. I think there was no urgency as such to delete this article without any warning. My protest is for that and undue allegations imposed by the editor.
--Anand Khare 11:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The book was published by a vanity press, a print-on-demand house. There were no claims of notability, or of significance or importance; this made the article equivalent to promotional material, advertising, and/or spam. I have no problem with you providing the contributor with a copy of the content by e-mail (although he's not allowed to keep it in userspace). Your understanding that books must go through PROD or AFD is incorrect. As for your comment that the standard rule is that "2 eyes have to hit every article" -- well, I have the impulse to make a joke about how the 2 eyes in question were my left eye and my right eye. Seriously, though, that only applies if there's any remotely plausible argument to be made. Anything else is process masturbation. DS (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
New-ish user causing problems
You're good with mentoring/advice etc. If you have the time then QuickEditor could probably do with some, in particular for mis-use of templates and guidance regarding the five pillars. I have tried and have been rebuffed. I think it is mostly just bumptiousness but others may see things differently. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seen your post. Thank you for that. You'll gather that there have been some more issues since the above, and it was pointless me trying to engage as they have no goodwill in respect of me, per their rebuff of my earlier offer. I deleted a wikilove they posted on SudoGhost's talk page not long ago as that definitely was beyond the pale. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
In response to your comment to DGG
I found that 'article' by patrolling userspace. You would be horrified by how much garbage gets dumped there. Sometimes people try to sneak stuff past article patrol that way, by creating it in userspace and then moving it to articlespace. I don't let that happen unless it's a valid article.
Use your newly-granted admin privileges to read that deleted content. It is horrible, and there is nothing that asserts any notability, significance, importance, value, merit, or worth. All we can say is that it exists, and here is a careful list of its contents.
My cat's litter box exists, and I could provide a careful list of its contents.
We do not bite the newcomers, but neither do we let them get away with absolutely anything they want. This user's intent was to use Wikipedia to promote the book which he wrote. The book he had to pay a company to print.
For a book to have been printed by a vanity press is not an absolute indicator that the book does not belong on Wikipedia. But it's very nearly absolute.
You are free to disagree with any of my deletions, and to restore them, on the merits of their content. You are not free to restore them solely on the grounds that you feel I did not properly flex my fingers when flushing the wiki-toilet. DS (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, no, of the dozen or so that I looked at, the deletions all looked correct. I was, in fact, strictly concerned with process, and with that process's effect on the newish editors who create these articles. I always worry that a new user who creates a promotional piece isn't doing so out of malice, simply ignorance of what Wikipedia is for (since even many of our existing articles are borderline promotional). Further, I think that, in at least a small percentage of the cases, these editors can be taught to become useful Wikipedia editors. But if we don't offer guidance, or at least a semblance of "process wonkery", they definitely won't. I'm still "new" and idealist though--that will likely wear off in time.
- My other concern was simply related to grilling I took in my RfA related to CSD. Several people (including DGG) rightly opposed because I didn't properly answer a question about CSD #A7--basically, a nearly identical case to the vanity book--that is, they argued that even an article likely to be deleted via other processes cannot be speedily deleted unless it falls squarely within a CSD category. Thus, seeing your practice surprised me, and so I sincerely inquired to DGG whether or not your practice was acceptable (knowing that the "rules" don't always match "practice"). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
End game at Kurmi
I think that we may have reached the end of the game with regard to mentioning shudra in the article etc. I know that you cannot step in and pronounce that consensus has been reached because you are involved, but hopefully someone does soon. Then I can add it to the FAQ and we can all move on to the next MW/YK/TT battleground. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't made hardly any comments on caste talk pages recently--i've just barely been keeping up with high priority stuff. I'll try to check in soon. One quick thought--be very wary of making any move while YK is blocked, as it could easily be seen as trying to take advantage of xyr absence, even though it' not. Unless that wasn't a page xe was working on--I haven't kept track of who's at which page. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Reaper
Reaper has managed to block himself? D'oh! - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Your recent revert at Chandigarh
I very nearly reverted that which you did here a few hours ago. At best, it seemed to achieve nothing. Do you have any idea what the contributor may have been trying to achieve? I have seen this sort of edit before and it baffles me. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- If the user page is accurate, xe's only 13. Which, explains nearly any odd behavior, ne? The one concern when I see edits like that is that the person is trying to get 10 edits in to get autoconfirmed, but the rate isn't very high, so that's not likely the case here. I'll keep monitoring, though--I put a welcome message on xyr page and asked if there was a reason for the edits, so maybe they can explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
An exceptionally simple theory of everything
Did an edit of the lede and Chronology of An exceptionally simple theory of everything. Would be great if you could give it a look and comment.-Scientryst (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Chandigarh Capital Region - ghosts of problems past
As you probably noticed by now, Chandigarh Capital Region now redirects to Chandigarh. I'm not sure about the way it was done, or that there was "broad consensus". Plus, it leaves behind a talk page.
Anyway, it also leaves the following illegitimate items:
- Parks and gardens in Chandigarh Capital Region
- Knowledge industry in Chandigarh Capital Region
- Transportation in Chandigarh Capital Region
- Economy of Chandigarh Capital Region
- Template:Chandigarh Capital Region
- [ [Category:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh Capital Region] ]
And maybe more.
I know you're busy, so you advise and I'll do the legwork.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I didn't agree with the redirect of CCR, I was in the minority, so I didn't object. I prolly should add a section to Chandigarh with the relevant info. I say, just prod all of the mainspace articles with a note saying there's no need for a redirect (no one is going to type those titles into the search box) because consensus decided that even the "main" top isn't necessary. Once those are gone, the template and cat are easily eliminated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I prodded the following, citing "Article dependent on "Chandigarh Capital Region" being a defined area. It isn't. Per discussion, Chandigarh Capital Region is no longer an article, and now redirects to Chandigarh."
- I didn't quite understand note of explanation you recommended. Is what I wrote okay?
- I would like to paste the talk from CCR into Chandigarh talk. Subpage? Section? Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your prod note is great. We don't, as far as I know, when redirecting an article, do anything with that article's talk page, as there's no real need to, and because at some point someone might want to recreate the CCR article, so they should be able to see why the redirect was made. That is, redirected articles usually retain their talk pages, though deleted articles have the talk page deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- "We don't...do anything with that article's talk page": I think you're right. I was probably thinking of merge. I'll keep an eye on the 4 prods. After they (hopefully) slip into oblivion, I will prod the template and cat, and then dig for last remnants. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
AN re: Yogesh, TT, MangoWong
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. You are not named: this is just so you know, given your involvement. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- 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. - moved from WP:AN per request of Fowler&fowler. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Response
Qwyrxian: When you add new sections to article talk pages, please always add them at the bottom of the talk pages. This keeps them in a consistent order and makes it easier for new editors to know which discussions are current.
- Hi again. Thanks. I didn't know.
Qwyrxian: Also, as a side note, if you're proposing major changes to articles, you might want to remove the "Retired" banned from the top of this page :). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Removed. but I'm really not active. I get reverted too much.
Definition of Physics
Qwyrxian: Response to everything here. You asked for criticisms of your definition. You've provided the criticisms yourself. Your definition is, precisely that: your definition. You've shown us that, in fact, it does not match the definitions found in reliable sources. If you want to write a research/philosophy paper arguing that the definition of physics commonly used in textbooks, dictionaries, etc. is wrong, feel free to do so, and then seek a place to publish it (whether that's self-publishing on the internet, in a philosophy of science journal, in a book, whatever). However, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought/research. We can and will only write what reliable sources have said, not what we ourselves think is "good" or "true". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC
- I'll fix it all.
Qwyrxian: Please don't remove talk page comments, even your onw--it disrupts the conversation (it makes my response make much less sense)
Saeed:
I didn't remove anything in my recent edit. I made the intermediate part hidden (because It was wrong and I was fixing it) and moved the last part to this page
I'm not removing anything from other users. The long subjective part is fully and carefully in the user's talk pages.(Example) and the compact objective part is linked to talk:Physics; because that's what all the people taking part in the discussion agree upon. Please allow me to remove and correct my own mistakes. This will allow all of us to reach a final best decision, and reduce the time necessary to do it.
Qwyrxian: First, you're not allowed to remove my response, period (which you did, perhaps by mistake). Then, the problem is that if you take all of that out, it makes my response look like I'm holding you accountable for something you didn't do, which is quite unfair to my comment. How about this: put the part of your comments that you don't think are relevant any more into a collapse box (see Template:Collapse top), or strike through the parts of your text you no longer hold as necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Saeed: Yes I did all the mistakes you mentioned. Even more:
- I saved my progress before I finish it and caused so much disturbance to you.
- I assumed talk pages are editable just like an article.
- I didn't read all the Wikipedia rules before editing talk pages
- I wasn't familiar with the wiki culture, and your interests and the way you might interpret all this.
- What I write there is just wrong.
I had ten years of elaborate work in my "not so free" time and I have come up with a solution. That's in my mind. and it takes effort to put it into actions.
But I still need you, your advice, your support, and your trust. here is my problem: I like to see Physics has become a good article. So I must copy-edit it. since the definition does not allow it, I must correct it. Since I'm not allowed, I must discuss it. While I'm learning how to do it, I must also learn to use the talk page. While doing that, I must move between different users' talk page. the mistakes I make, can cause reverts and edit wars in the talk page that I must resolve. and now I'm out of energy.
Much worse frustrating stuff exists for admins.
Suggestion:
- I terminate this and get retired for two to six more month
- During this time, You gain trust about my Science knowledge and skill in Physics. you also find out if I am acting according to the four pillars of Wikipedia. I can help that by providing personal info and evidence.
- Then you give me the go and I Seriously start improving the article Physics with full discussions in user talk pages, until I fix every problem there.
- I will also obey every each of your commands.
- Meanwhile you support me by allowing to act according to fifth pillar. that is (1) Notifying me about the mistakes I make meanwhile. I'll correct them on schedule. (2) supporting my against ban and revert by other admins, by assuring them that you are watching my every edit and mistake.
In short: You'll be the Wiki specialist, I'll be the Physics specialists. this will unite us; and together, we respond to criticism from other users. If they are right, we will correct the mistakes. and if they are wrong, we will notify them.
If we succeed, we can improve a lot of top priority articles to a state they deserve. --Saeed 05:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, there's no need to retire. In fact, if you're actively working on this, you should do the work on wiki. Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively; you shouldn't think of it as a process you have to or should complete all on your own. Now, there's nothing wrong with working offline, or working in a sandbox or talk page, if you think that the work you're doing takes time. But, know that, in the end, all changes you want to make will inevitably be altered, reverted, or otherwise changed by other editors over time. You can go ahead and start making changes to Physics right now. Ultimately, other users will trust you based on your conversations on talk pages and your editing behavior. Regarding your fourth and fifth points, there's no need to "obey my commands"; rather, I'm just pointing out to you the rules as I interpret them--I'm not even always right. In this case, regarding talk page changes I am :), but I'm not right every time, nor do I have any authority to command you to do something. Rather, all I wanted to do was to point out to you one of the rules regarding talk pages; now you understand, so now we're all happier. On your fifth point specifically, however, I won't stand as a defense between you and other admins, nor am I allowed to even if I want to. I am happy to provide you with any and all advice that you need, answer your questions regarding Wikipedia policy, etc. But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me." There is a formal process known as mentoring, but, even in that case, while the mentor can take on a more direct role and help act as a buffer, they can't ultimately prevent others' input.
- So here's what I recommend. You start editing articles. Wherever, whenever you like. You may want to review some of our core policies first, I recommend the five pillars that you linked to above as a good start. Those aren't the only things that govern editing, but they are a good place to begin. When other editors revert changes you make (and I guarantee that they will, sometimes), talk it out on article talk pages. Whenever you have a question, ask me, and I'll try to help as much as I can.
- One final hint: If you're trying to spend 2-6 months figuring out a basic definition, because you're trying to reason it out, think about the best possible choice of words, you're probably doing it wrong. That's the sort of thing you would do if you're trying to argue, from scratch, a new, original definition of physics, based on your analysis of the whole field. Instead, go with the closest, simplest amalgamation of standard definitions--that's the way to follow WP:OR and WP:V. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- And a question: do you want me to collapse that definition section on Talk:Physics? If it's still a work in progress, it's fine to just minimize it for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"there's no need to retire."
- In fact there is. This is an open letter to the whole community.
Why I am retired.
Problem Physics is an important article in a bad state. to improve it, one needs
- knowledge: I have it.
- wiki-skill: Others have it.
So neither me, nor the others can improve it. because I can make wiki-mistakes, and the others can make knowledge-mistakes.
Solution? No solution. Here is a list of what I have tried out.
- About four years ago, I became a member of with Wikipedia.
- I eventually found the tutorial and learned the basics.
- I needed knowledge to edit, so I started to study. I studied about 300 books and wrote some amazing books.
- I wanted to write for Wikipedia too. I still want to. but whenever I editted, I was reverted for this and that reason
- Then I was asked to read this and that FAQs, laws, policies, guides, help pages, ...
- Surprisingly, I was so eager that I actually tried to read it all. I thought it's no more difficult than 300 books.
- It was. I thought I would go straight and edit, then correct my mistakes. but everyone was much more tolerant about knowledge mistakes than wiki mistakes.
- I tried to make some friends. but I was hardly successful to avoid making enemies.
- I tried sister projects. It was the same. even commons were no place for my art.
- I tried to discuss this problem and give proposals for it in the strategy wiki. I even talked to some important people in the foundation. but it didn't help
- I tried to solve it right here: not to fear, go straight, solve every problem. correct every mistake I make. but for the first time I realized it's costly. I realized that I was spending a surplus of money doing all this. my friends got good marks, found a job, married, started their stocks accounts, ... I was studying more than all of them. but I didn't even get a good grade in the classroom.
"Wikipedia articles are edited collaboratively; you shouldn't think of it as a process you have to or should complete all on your own."
- Wikipedia is like a company that asks all the workers, lawyers, engineers, tradesmen, stockholders, and managers, to "collaborate" in marketing, designing, production and cleaning, regardless of their field of ability. a real "collaborative" company is where an engineer is only required to design, a worker is only required to produce, and a lawyer is only required to remove legal barriers.
- In Wikipedia the tools that a specialist needs to do his job are not specified to him.
I must be expected to write a whole Physics book to prove my knowledge. I must be bombarded with criticism about physics. I must be expected to provide knowledge and reliable source for Physics. I must be expected to review and rate physics articles, and give scientific solutions. but I'm not being expected what I can. I'm being expected what I can't. like learning all these policies and rules.
Final word I love reading Wikipedia, more than editing it. Especially if the rules are more important than the article quality. but if there is something I can do with my knowledge, let me know.
But I can't actually say, "Hey, no one gets to take administrative actions against this person except me."
- So you have noticed how usually admins take "administrative actions against" users.
"If you're trying to spend 2-6 months figuring out a basic definition"
- No, I was giving you 2-6 month to challenge my knowledge, and see if I really worth it.
"In this case, regarding talk page changes I am [right about the rules]"
- Yes, you are. I thought talk pages are a place for collaborative work. but they more sound like a forum.
"And a question: do you want me to collapse that definition section on Talk:Physics?"
- If collapse means delete, Yes please. because all the discussions exist here.
"If it's still a work in progress, it's fine to just minimize it for now."
- Yes, it's still a work in progress. but this kind of work are prohibited in a talk page.
- Well...I'm not sure I can help. I want to, but you're so fundamentally misunderstanding the Wiki process that it could be a challenge. You're focused on gaining and proving your physics knowledge. Wikipedia certainly values experts, but one never needs to be or prove that one is an effort prior to editing. Furthermore, being an expert doesn't give a person any special rights or privileges in determining Wikipedia content. Even if you were able to prove to me that your a highly respected, tenured researcher in Physics, that wouldn't actually make your opinion more necessarily "right". In fact, I edit far more articles that I don't have expertise in than those that I do. How can I do that? Because I read sources, and report what I read. That's really all Wikipedia is--a glorified summary of what others have written (this is because that's what all good encyclopedias are). So, I'm not going to spend any amount of time challenging your knowledge. Instead, make or propose changes to the article. If they seem like an improvement, they'll stay; if not, others will revert or change them, in which case you discuss those changes on the talk page. If that isn't how you're comfortable working, then, yes, you are correct that Wikipedia editing is not right for you.
- By the way, the whole reason I want to not delete the talk page is specifically because it is a place for collaborative work. However, what I have done is archived that section manually--that way, no one has to worry about it any more. Please note, though, that your message at the top fundamentally misunderstands my point: in fact, I want you to keep correcting and collaborating on that definition--I just want you to do that by posting new messages, not by erasing old ones. You can keep working on a user's talk page, but please note that no matter how long you work there, eventually it will be up to a consensus of editors at the article itself to agree or disagree with any "results" you get. And, again, I'm just trying to help avoid you extra work, but the path you are going down now is one of original research, and is unlikely to be accepted. But what you do with your time is ultimately up to you. And if your decision is that you prefer editing Wikipedia to reading it, that's fine. If you wat to edit, and you need help, I am always willing to answer questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Re Declined Speedy Deletion nom
Augh... I'm scared of AfD. --Σ talkcontribs 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I did explain on the article's talk page that, if the article isn't improved, it's going to be deleted sooner or later. I'll added to my list of things to follow up on, and, assuming I remember, if there's no improvement in a week or so I'll try to WP:BEFORE it and then, if I find nothing, AfD it myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the concern and other helps. Pls fix the issue of mandatory warning before deletion also. It will help new users.I wonder if the language of Dragonfly ,the xe, is in accordance with the high standards set by wikipedia.
--Anand Khare 06:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandkharebsnl (talk • contribs)
MW & weasel
MW has been telling a fairly new editor that the word "claim" is always a weasel word, including in situation where an article says that "X claim to becite" or "Anthropologists Y claims Acite ... but Z thinks Bcite". I would imagine that this is gearing up to the "claim kshatriya" statement, although at present it is at Talk:Yadav.
Yes, I know we could always change "claim" for "say"/"says" etc, but sometimes it is just about flow, not repeating the same word umpteen times in a paragraph or, well, all sorts of things.
I have tried to correct him, pointing out that WP:MOS (which he cited as a policy]] is in fact a guideline and that there are genuine uses for the word that are not weasling. The reason for trying to correct was because I feel that it could lead a new-ish contributor down a very awkward and potentially destructive road, where all statements containing the word "claim" are challenged, removed etc.
MW, inevitably perhaps, insists that they're correct. What is your take on WP;Weasel ? I have no intention of wasting my time replying further to MW in the thread but I might want to drop a note on the newbie's page at some point in the next few weeks if a pattern of misunderstanding should emerge along the lines of challenging all uses of it. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've taken varying positions on it. I think the key, as always is too see what it actually says. First, as you point out, it's a guideline, not a policy, though I personally don't like distinguishing between the two (you can get blocked for violating an essay, and you can get away with violating policies, so, it's all about the "mood" of the audience). Second, I look to the actual guideline, and this one explicitly tells us not to apply it religiously: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorse a particular point of view. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Now, if I had to err on one side or the other, I'd rather err on the side of not using the words whenever possible, especially if I know I have a personal opinion about the matter (which I always do). In this particular case, I actually agree with MW (as I mentioned on the talk page), because it creates an unfair, two-tiered setting: "They claim this about themselves, but (implication) anybody who's not so self-biased knows that..." Of course, as I pointed out, we can't break NPOV or V by going the other way--that is, we can't make it look like a fact that some of the clans were Kshatriya. On the other hand, you point out a good example of when "claim" would be valid...as in "He claimed that he didn't kill her, but he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison." Using "said" there instead of claim would seem unnatural, and not necessary per NPOV, to me.
I wouldn't worry about the other editor--there's no way that my or your advice is going to come off well. We were all told things early on in our editing that we then repeated and were later told out wasn't actually universally true (at least, I assume we've all had that experience...maybe it's just me). Eventually, someone will "correct" the other editor, and life will move on. Or they'll have a long, protracted fight about it...but life will still, eventually, move on. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Baiting
I saw the first two sentences of this post [3] and I get the impression that you have described yourself as a very sad victim of my tremendously mean-spirited baiting. It will be nice if you can provide some details of the actual baiting process... like how you've been baited into ignoring other people's constructive ideas/posts (infuriating other parties in the process), calling people "allegedly smart", branding light-hearted comics as racist, or writing wonderful rants about your left-leaning political worldview. I will read the rest of the post later. Meanwhile, here's a little something to lighten up the mood [4]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)