MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 12d) to User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 9. |
117.206.100.197 (talk) →டேய் சுதர்ஷன் வாத்துமடையா: new section |
||
Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
I understand your concern, but I wish the general public to know that there's a dispute on the title (they don't usually read the talk page). [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
I understand your concern, but I wish the general public to know that there's a dispute on the title (they don't usually read the talk page). [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
== டேய் சுதர்ஷன் வாத்துமடையா == |
|||
உன் ஏக்ஸென்டோடு உன்னையும் ந்யூடர் பண்ணட்டுமா? ஹ ஹ ஹா. எத்தன ஐபிய வேண்ணாலும் பிளாக் பண்ணு....விகிபீடியட்களான உங்கள காய்ச்சறேன் பார்..in offensive mode now ;) |
|||
இதுதான் என் ஐபி (தற்போதைய): [[Special:Contributions/117.206.100.197|117.206.100.197]] ([[User talk:117.206.100.197|talk]]) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:11, 2 May 2011
Hello
This is regarding Tamil Kshatriya. I just wrote a referenced elaboration of an already referenced point by someone but the other one refuses and kind of dilly dallies me when i try on a consensus. He seems to an edit warlord from his talk page warnings. Is it that these propagandists are scot free and academicians like me are to be harassed by warnings and bans in wiki?!?!
I never like cat and mouse games in academics.
Konguboy (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, his editing has some problems. That doesn't matter though, because the problem is that your editing also has problems. I've explained this on your talk page, but I'll try again. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. That means that we edit together, as a group. In theory, almost all decisions on Wikipedia about what to include in articles require consensus. So when we disagree about something, we must (not "could" or "might") discuss the issue on the article's talk page. It's not a "cat and mouse" game, it's that Rajkis and myself both have a very serious concern about that information. For example, your addition states, "Denotified Communities in the Mukkulathor corpus Kallars, Maravars and Agamudaiyar are descendents of the great (Kalabhra) invaders from Odra desam and Sallia desam of the north, who are called 'Oddiars' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odisha#Origin_of_the_name_of_the_State as per the Nanjai Idayar copper plate inscriptions" and then cites [1]. The problem is, unless I'm just not seeing it, that page (or the ones after it) don't say anything about Kallars, Maravars, Agamudaiyar, or Oddiars. That means, to me, that you either made a mistake in the reference (like maybe you gave the wrong page), or you've included the wrong reference, or you're intentionally putting in information not backed up by the reference. That is what you need to discuss on the talk page.
- Now, just to be clear, though, just fixing that ref doesn't guarantee that the info goes in. There are many things we need to think about and discuss as we consider any possibly contentious addition. Now, if this kind of discussion is what you call a "cat and mouse game", then you will probably not be able to do anything other than the most minor of edits on Wikipedia. In the normal process of editing, people revert, alter, or supplement other people's edits. Disagreements happen regularly. The only way to resolve those disagreements is through conversation. So let's start that conversation now on the article's talk page. Please. Note that once you lay out your explanation and fix the reference, we may well agree to add the info. It may be that we need to keep discussing, or even follow our dispute resolution process to bring in the opinion of other editors. But policy does not allow you to just try to "force" your text into the article...we must discuss, discuss, discuss, until consensus is reached. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- (butting in)) Is this one still rumbling? My work on Paravar is drawing to a close in so far as finding additional material to add, although I am sure there is more out there somewhere. If there are issues on the TK article then should I don my flameproof suit once more? ... The concept of there not being disputes between academics would be a new one for me: disputes, and the politics of those, are their speciality. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's up to you. At the moment, as I said above, the information cannot go in, because it doesn't match the sources. I have additional worries about the source (I'm not sure it's an RS), and it seems to, yet again, be based upon historical legend, not archeological evidence. The latter, of course, can be overcome so long as we very clearly state that that is the source for the info and we have a secondary RS critically commenting on the original, but I don't know if we have that. To be honest, though, I don't even know if any of that has to do with the page at hand; it surely uses a totally different set of terminology; that means that there may be OR going on (Source X says "Group A did such and such, and everyone knows Group A is also called Group B, so we can say Group B did such and such"). Basically, my stance at the moment is that I'm not willing to put any effort into trying to do the research myself until Konguboy first agrees to start a discussion on the talk page. That is, the burden is on xem to begin explaining the relevance of the source and info, not on others to produce counter-sources or try to dig through fragments of a book on Google Books without any direction at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yours seems to be a sound strategy. Collaboration is everything here and the sooner people realise that, the better. I'd rather people agreed to differ on a talk page than edit war - at least some form of consensus would emerge. Extrapolation of "fact" is a definite non-starter as it is original research. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw. given the long history of socking, it's highly unlikely he won't try again at some point in the future. Nonetheless, another editor (User:Car Tick), who is a good faith editor with a long history in this field, seems to have concerns with the article; be sure, as always, that you discuss issues, not just revert the article to your preferred version. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
of course this guy just continues to totally ignore any input......
It's like this guy just doesn't "hear" us. [2] Deconstructhis (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Despite being advised not to, the adding apostrophes to decades thing contrary to WP:DECADE is continuing on like clockwork. Deconstructhis (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- There also appears to be some IP hopping going on here as well.[3] Exactly the same sorts of edits, both appear to be emanating from Jacksonville Florida. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, last "observation". :) I've reviewed quite a few of these edits now and to tell you the truth, in those instances where they're doing things like appropriately capitalizing stuff, it's fine. But there are still difficulties. I've noticed contradictions in the unreferenced material being added as you mentioned earlier as well; that makes me wonder about sourcing. There's also this whole thing with refusing to communicate with other editors when they're attempting to talk to you, while simultaneously continuing to engage in editing practices that are being objected to. Not good. As someone pointed out the other day, brute force should be discouraged. I'm thinking that a short term block may be required to get their attention. The most frustrating thing about all of this; apart from the lack of communication, is the fact that it would be so easy for them to provide some bibliographical context for us; if in fact they do have a source, any source. If they do, that's great. If they don't, because of things like those contradictions, I vote thumbs down. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- There also appears to be some IP hopping going on here as well.[3] Exactly the same sorts of edits, both appear to be emanating from Jacksonville Florida. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that I don't think the capitalization is correct. I can't find the station I'm specifically thinking of, but, in one instance, the Capitalization on every other slogan was something like "Proud to be Channel 8", and then on the one "national" slogan, they changed it to "Proud To Be Channel 8". The second capitalization is not only non-standard, but it doesn't make sense that only 1 of the slogans would use that capitalization method.
- Blocking isn't going to help if they're IP hopping, unless they're on a narrow range that can be range-blocked. The problem is that we've brought this to ANI and gotten no helpful response. I'll look at the newer batch and see what I think we should do; we can't afford to spend our time every single day reverting questionable, dubious edits. The alternative, of course, is to just ignore all of them...Lord knows practically nothing else on the TV station pages is sourced, so it's a little unfair of us to enforce that that one editor use sources. We can, though, revert all improper dating, and I think we might be able to get a block for disruptive editing counter to MOS on that one narrow point. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've just reported the IP to AIV...let's see what happens. They could easily decline it as not actually vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- And I was told to take it to AN/I, which is, in fact, the correct decision. I'll think about whether or not I want to bother with that...you know the only reason I ever started editing TV station pages in the first place was probably because of some routine vandalism patrolling, which is what led be to the issue about non-notable former staff.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was a thread at ANI on this just a few days ago. It archived already and it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Unsourced Content Added by Anon. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem is it basically petered out; there was indications that this was possibly issue of sockpuppetry, but no certainty (I'm not familiar with either master). But I guess I have no choice but to go back there. Before I do, let me see if I can get a list of addresses possibly being used. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is just so much going on all the time that these TV station articles do not strike anyone as a high priority set of articles. We need more admins. </hint> If you can collect a large-ish number of IPs it might be possible to sort them out into a few tight range blocks. See you tomorrow, --Diannaa (Talk) 04:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I just looked over the previous AN/I discussion and I'm having a difficult time buying into why, minimally, this isn't simply being treated as a straight forward case of disruptive editing, I'm speaking specifically about [4] and [5]. What's the present count all-told in terms of the number of editors who have tried to even get this editor(s) to simply respond and failed in the attempt? A half dozen? Even leaving aside for a moment whether or not this is a sock in action; isn't it reasonable to expect that if an editor decides to continue to add material to the encyclopedia; whether it's referenced or not, and a half dozen other editors are asking for ANY form of discussion and being totally ignored that we need to do something to get that editors attention? Maybe they do have reliable source for all of this material; maybe they don't. One thing for sure; we'll have a difficult time making a determination about anything if they simply ignore other editors completely and carry on like the rest of us don't exist. Also; I'm not buying the argument implied in the AN/I that somehow we should abandon policy, guidelines and consensus for a particular type of article, just because a lot of articles in that particular class are full of crap. Lots of the edits that this editor is making are unreferenced statistical changes; since when have we abandoned the principle that those kind of potentially insidious alterations can be passed over in the hope that 'one day' maybe one of us will come across a reliable source to support them? In my opinion that's just lazy dereliction, and if that's the kind of attitude we continue to hold when it comes to 'certain types' of article subjects, we get the crappy encyclopedia we deserve. I say, if six editors want a discussion about sourcing with a single other editor and that editor ignores all attempts at communication and continues to add unreferenced material for months on end; it's time to put a 'halting mechanism' in place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is just so much going on all the time that these TV station articles do not strike anyone as a high priority set of articles. We need more admins. </hint> If you can collect a large-ish number of IPs it might be possible to sort them out into a few tight range blocks. See you tomorrow, --Diannaa (Talk) 04:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the problem is it basically petered out; there was indications that this was possibly issue of sockpuppetry, but no certainty (I'm not familiar with either master). But I guess I have no choice but to go back there. Before I do, let me see if I can get a list of addresses possibly being used. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- There was a thread at ANI on this just a few days ago. It archived already and it is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Unsourced Content Added by Anon. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- And I was told to take it to AN/I, which is, in fact, the correct decision. I'll think about whether or not I want to bother with that...you know the only reason I ever started editing TV station pages in the first place was probably because of some routine vandalism patrolling, which is what led be to the issue about non-notable former staff.... Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've just reported the IP to AIV...let's see what happens. They could easily decline it as not actually vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've opened up a new section on WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reviving a discussion about a disruptive editor(s). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Deconstructhis, if you know of any more IPs that should be added, please do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- My time is looking a little restrictive today Qwyrxian, but I'll have a look around. Thanks for re-launching that ANI, it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmmm.....this [6] looks kind of interesting, in terms of a "source" for this material. I think the second to last line; right above the date, at the top of the page may be telling here: "Special thanks to a number of individuals who have helped to provide many of the titles, broadcast times, affiliation switches, etc". Is it possible that what we're looking at in these edits is actually second hand original research being retrieved and inserted into articles by a non-communicative anonymous IP from a Tripod site? Perhaps we'll never know. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the ANI thread is attracting no comments whatsoever. It's not just these radio station edits either, you know. Sometimes while using Huggle I will see someone make a large number of unsourced changes to articles about airports, or TV shows, or the names of voice actors on cartoons. And don't even get me started about India. How do we block someone for making unsourced changes to an unsourced article? --Diannaa (Talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh...Indian articles, especially those about tiny villages or sub-castes, are always a difficult topic to wade into. It's awkward trying to sort out an edit war between two people arguing about whether or not 1500 year old Religious Poem X establishes that at some time in ancient history Tribe Y were "warriors" or "rulers". Especially difficult since its often nearly impossible to determine the reliability of the sources (themselves routinely more than 100 years old). That, and the village articles that talk about how wonderful the village is and provide a detailed description of all of the "important" people who have ever lived there...I know that the foundation is making a big push to expand our user base in and coverage of India. I wonder how much they've thought about handling the fact that Oral History really has a lot of legitimate "reliability" in many parts of India, and how much that conflicts with our (arbitrary and culturally-centric) rules on sources. Heck, even handling the reliability of newspaper reports can be challenging, since many current Indian newspapers read a lot like older US/UK newspapers, when the reporters were legitimately allowed to integrate their own analysis, interpretations, and opinions right into the "regular" stories. I wonder if we'll actually be able to adapt our principles, or if we're going to try to take a "Our way or the highway" approach. An interesting issue for the somewhat near future. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the answer to the literature issue in the WP world is as per Paravar: if it is Sangam literature etc then it is not reliable, period. However, as you say, how well that principle will hold up as more of the subcontinent appear here is debatable. As far as radio/TV stations go, I struggle to see how many of them even meet GNG but presume that somewhere in the past a consensus emerged, rather like the daft one that permits every high school (another set of articles that consume more editorial time than the benefit that they provide). - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- I actually ran face-first into the TV station consensus a week ago, since I didn't know it existed. Their SNG is located on WP:Notability (media), so I didn't notice it. Basically, the rule for the US is that any FCC licensed station which broadcasts at least some original programming is considered to be default notable.
- Well, the answer to the literature issue in the WP world is as per Paravar: if it is Sangam literature etc then it is not reliable, period. However, as you say, how well that principle will hold up as more of the subcontinent appear here is debatable. As far as radio/TV stations go, I struggle to see how many of them even meet GNG but presume that somewhere in the past a consensus emerged, rather like the daft one that permits every high school (another set of articles that consume more editorial time than the benefit that they provide). - Sitush (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ugh...Indian articles, especially those about tiny villages or sub-castes, are always a difficult topic to wade into. It's awkward trying to sort out an edit war between two people arguing about whether or not 1500 year old Religious Poem X establishes that at some time in ancient history Tribe Y were "warriors" or "rulers". Especially difficult since its often nearly impossible to determine the reliability of the sources (themselves routinely more than 100 years old). That, and the village articles that talk about how wonderful the village is and provide a detailed description of all of the "important" people who have ever lived there...I know that the foundation is making a big push to expand our user base in and coverage of India. I wonder how much they've thought about handling the fact that Oral History really has a lot of legitimate "reliability" in many parts of India, and how much that conflicts with our (arbitrary and culturally-centric) rules on sources. Heck, even handling the reliability of newspaper reports can be challenging, since many current Indian newspapers read a lot like older US/UK newspapers, when the reporters were legitimately allowed to integrate their own analysis, interpretations, and opinions right into the "regular" stories. I wonder if we'll actually be able to adapt our principles, or if we're going to try to take a "Our way or the highway" approach. An interesting issue for the somewhat near future. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the ANI thread is attracting no comments whatsoever. It's not just these radio station edits either, you know. Sometimes while using Huggle I will see someone make a large number of unsourced changes to articles about airports, or TV shows, or the names of voice actors on cartoons. And don't even get me started about India. How do we block someone for making unsourced changes to an unsourced article? --Diannaa (Talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmmm.....this [6] looks kind of interesting, in terms of a "source" for this material. I think the second to last line; right above the date, at the top of the page may be telling here: "Special thanks to a number of individuals who have helped to provide many of the titles, broadcast times, affiliation switches, etc". Is it possible that what we're looking at in these edits is actually second hand original research being retrieved and inserted into articles by a non-communicative anonymous IP from a Tripod site? Perhaps we'll never know. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- My time is looking a little restrictive today Qwyrxian, but I'll have a look around. Thanks for re-launching that ANI, it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Back on the original topic (the IP editor w/o sources)...we're about 13 hours away from archival again. I guess it just doesn't matter to those currently active...ah well. I guess we can wait and see if Neutralhomer goes forward with the "nuclear option", and, if not, go figure out a path forward from there. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This user is removing sourced contents in the Aryan wiki page. He has already been banned for the same action by an admin some months ago.Rajkris (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have time to descend into another issue of this type right now. Take a look at dispute resolution to see what options you have. A quick glance, though, makes me think that, as always, you are misusing the word "vandalism." Removing something for "Undue weight" (as SISPCM did) is not vandalism, ever. If you continue to use the word vandalism to describe good faith edits, you will eventually be blocked for violating our policy forbidding personal attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- (butt) Aside from this, Rajkris had already raised it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:SISPCM_reported_by_Nmate_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29 before posting above. Doesn't look like great wikiquette to me but I can't recall the exact policy right now. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that. It was a one time event (on the Aryan page). Blocks are preventative--that is, we only block people to stop future disruption to the encyclopedia. We are not supposed to block people as "punishment" for past bad behavior. If xe repeatedly removes the material, there are steps that can be taken. If you think that the person is operating more than one account (because they engage in identical, not similar behavior), then there are things that can be done then, as well. But we don't go back in time several days and say "That thing you did was bad. No Wikipedia for you for 1 day." Regarding his earlier block, I was aware of it, because there are logs you can check. People are allowed to remove almost anything from their user talk page (see WP:BLANKING for details), this includes block notices. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Murph146
- Thanks for being poliete about the comments and offering to guide me with the myestatemanager page. While i would like to see it have its own page and i do think the website is notable i dont think i'll have the time. My biggest concern was getting the page pdf before one of you deleted. The criteria for thw wikipedia edits assignment stated that we just had to make the edits, they didnt have to stick. My edits to four pages that had aleady been established all stuck so I'm in good shape. I will be in touch for our Media Access Project which i will be uploading my info to by the end of the week. Murph146 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome, I think. Please note, however, that intentionally adding information to mainspace that you know doesn't meet standards could be considered a form of disruption. I doubt it would happen, but you could conceivably end up blocked if you were just using Wikipedia for purposes not intended to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know how closely the graders will be looking at your edits, but they might also consider those additions not worthy of full credit, since they didn't actually attempt to meet WP's standards. For example, you couldn't turn in a fictional story to a writing class asking for a non-fiction essay and expect full credit. But, in any event, that's all between you and your prof/TA. Let me know what you need with regards to MAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your referring just to the page i tried creating on my estate management correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murph146 (talk • contribs)
- Also the section you just deleted on Net Neutrality from our Media Access Page just needs to be reworded correct? 24.11.200.95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murph146 (talk • contribs)
- Be sure to log in to preserve your identity, and also to be sure that you get credit for your edits. The above stuff was just about the estatemanager page. As for Net Neutrality, the 2 paragraphs that are still there need to be rephrased; the third paragraph probably needs to stay out entirely because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with MAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
"Disrespectful"
Here's an editor [8] who feels it is "disrespectful" for other editors to remove extensive lists of completely unreferenced biographical material from articles; however apparently they don't feel the same way about completely ignoring recent postings of rationales for not doing so on the talk page of the same article.:) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely, the user is fully unaware of talk pages and edit summaries. I enhanced your message on the talk page, and left an additional message on the user's talk page; at least that brings up the big orange box when/if they log in under the same username. Hopefully a dialogue will ensue.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Userpage Shield
The Userpage Shield | ||
Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my userpage, even before I got to it! ScottSteiner ✍ 14:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC) |
You're welcome...first thing that popped up when I turned on Huggle tonight. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011
|
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Mass TV station edits
FYI. This is strange. I'm not quite up to speed, but is this one of several IPs doing this and not responding to talk page communications? If so, is it one person, and should sock tags start to fly?
CC: Qwyrxian, Deconstructhis
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is probably the same guy. Now we have 173.8.57.46, 98.82.234.45, and 98.82.167.40 that geolocate to Jacksonville, Florida, and 98.82.58.151, which geolocates to Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville. --Diannaa (Talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Fake User
I have recently found out about this account by my friend. He stated that he created it for me because everyone uses Wikipedia. I understand that this was a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. He provided the wrong information about myself and my other contributions. I apologize for any inconvenience with my account. I would like to place a sandbox of my old band Crazy Generation for one simple reason, to show the truth with them and not all of the false information that my acquittance had provided. Thank you if you understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakens88 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, you're asking to be allowed to create a page in your sandbox and leave it there indefinitely as information about your old band. If that is correct, then the answer is no. First, why should your friends believe information in your sandbox any more than getting it directly from you personally, since it would still just be the thing you wrote? It's not like it becomes "more true" just because it's in a Wikipedia sandbox as opposed to being said out loud. In any event, though, Wikipedia is not a webhost. You could just as easily go to Blogger (I mean the blogger site, not our article about it) or some other free, open hosting site and put whatever you want there—then you can say whatever you like and not be bound by our rules.
- If I've misunderstood your request, please leave another message and I'd be glad to continue trying to help. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Phil protect
Thanks. I was just doing that and saw you had already done it. Cheers to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Re your talk
Hi there! Can't understand your message on my talk page, please elaborate. You mention "When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary", but I did - "13:49, 26 April 2011 Oops daisy (talk | contribs) (8,847 bytes) (→Commonwealth Games 2010: unrelated to CWG, see talk page) (undo)" You also mention "discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page." I did that too! ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suresh_Kalmadi#Allegations Oops daisy (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies--I've struck the warning and explained on your talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
RE: Original Research
You recently deleted the information which I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_game. I have read your reason for doing so, and I can provide you with the information necessary to re-install my post. You claimed I used original information based on my experience, I can now provide you with sources. One of the most played and famous MMORPGs "World of Warcraft", uses this system of character roles I have explained, as well as many other MMORPGs. Here is a link (by blizzard entertainment) where you can see each class in world of Warcraft has one of the character roles or "archetypes" I was talking about in my post linked to it: http://us.battle.net/wow/en/game/class/. Another popular MMORPG that uses these terms is Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning. Here is a youtube video of a person customizing his or her character; in the customization screen, you can see each class has one of the archetypes i specified linked to it like world of warcraft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNGey0gMd2E. You can verify the legitimacy of that video by going on the following site: http://www.warhammeronline.com/index.php, or by playing the game yourself. Many other games also incorporate these archetypes, however to not specify or explain them, they sometimes merely give a description of the archetype without giving it its well known name. One game that does this is Lord of the Rings Online. You can still note that the players in such games still refer to these archetypes by the description i gave, to express what kind of a player they need in their group, etc. Would you please allow me to post my accurate information on the previously established page? Also excuse any grammar mistakes, i am typing in a hurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in the middle of typing an answer on your page right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for grabbing that Qwyrxian; I'm going to remove it from my talk page as an error. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: (I will provide verification of my claims later in the paragraph, please read it in its entirety, also, capitalized letters are not intended to be rude, but to emphasis a point.) Your first comment "the youtube link of one person using those terms on one game doesn't help us--that's just one person's usage..." Is not an accurate claim. If you viewd the video, you would know that the video was not that of a person using those terms. The youtube link i specified shows ACTUAL in-game information created by the games developers, and PROVES that that game uses the character system that i explained, more specifically, You can see DEVELOPER crated content around 10 seconds in (class description) showing that each class in the game has one of the archetypes i listed. All players must witness that content to play the game. That information is NOT user created content (you can VERIFY THIS CLAIM by visiting the games OFFICIAL website: http://www.warhammeronline.com/index.php, or by asking a game developer, or by just playing the game. That being said, i have established that 2 of the 3 games i'v mentioned incorporate this character role system. You also claimed that i said ALL MMORPGs use this system, and i said NO such thing. I said MOST MMORPGs use this system. I also explained how some games, even though they don't officially use the archetypes, their classes correspond with them. The example i gave about Lord of the rings was to help explain that fact. Even though some MMOs dont say for example "This class is a Tank", most of the classes in the game still correspond with the archetypes i gave. You can VERIFY THAT CLAIM by viewing the classes on: http://www.lotro.com/hero.php? and comparing them to my listed archetypes. I can't provide you with an infinite list of MMOs that specifically use the archetype system. I was only intending to give you 2 VERIFIED examples. If you wish for me to provide more examples, i can probably do so. However, i can also modify my post to say "SOME -MMORPGS use this system" instead of saying "Most do" which would completely legitimize my post, even if world of Warcraft and Warhammer are the only ones that use this system. Will you please give consideration to me re-posting my information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I was a bit unclear myself, as well. First, I strongly appreciate your taking the time to carefully try to explain your points, and I don't read your response above as rude--thanks for that! But, regarding the points, at the moment, the most you could say is "2 MMORPG use a system of character building that divides characters into certain types based on their in game function. These types include..." The problem is, that information shouldn't go into the MMORPG article, it should go into the articles about each individual game (i.e., WoW & Warhammer). The latter part, about LotR (and, by extension, your claim that this is true for "most" or even "some number greater than 2) is what Wikipedia calls original research. I know that this sounds weird, but I recommend you take a look at that link. Basically, we regard any sort of analysis/interpretation to be a form of original research. So, for example, you could not add (to the MMORPG page or the LotR page) the claim "Lord of the Rings Online has character classes that correspond in function to these classes, even though they use different terms." That is your interpretation of what the LotR character classes are. Furthermore, no matter how many examples you give, you still can't make the general claim of "MMORPGs often/usually/regularly use these character types" unless you can produce a secondary source that verifies that they do.
- Maybe that's also where I may have confused you, and might help both understand original research and what sources are needed. Wikipedia distinguishes between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are the "first" basic source. Both of the sources you provided above are primary sources, because they are both from the actual games themselves. Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources, but only to state exactly what those sources say. As an example, if you had a list of the temperature every day in City X for one year (which is a primary source), you could say "The temperature in City X is between 10 degrees and 29 degrees". However, you could not say something like "Winters in City X are warm and mild." That second statement is interpretation, and, thus, not allowed. In general, though, we don't use primary sources. Instead, we ask for people to use secondary sources. That includes things like good newspaper articles, reliable magazine (print and online), some television news programs, academic journals, trade publications, books by reliable publishers, etc. That is what you really need to look for here: you need to find a secondary source that discusses what a Tank (etc.) is, and claims that these character classes/functions/types are regularly found across MMORPGs.
- I hope that makes this more clear; this is a really weird thing, because it's essentially the opposite of how we teach students to write in school, where we want students to make their own analysis. Here, though, all we can/should do is report what other, reliable people have said. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it correct that all Wikipedia.com articles and edits must be verified with these sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, please read this response in its entirety before jumping to conclusions. I a found several Wikipedia.com articles which state the following: Tanking is a common archetype in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_(gaming), that DPS (damage per second) is a common archetypes in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damage_per_second, that Healing is a common archetype in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healer_(gaming), and Buffing/De-buffing is a common archetype in MMORPGs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buff_(video_gaming). If each Wikipedia post must be verified in the ways you claim, that means these facts have been verified already for those pages, since they have not been deleted. Therefore i believe you should allow me to continue post my explanation of general MMORPG character roles (archetypes), since the information i state is seen in many separate articles which and have not been deleted; my only intention is to compile a summary of archetypes and place it in the MMORPG page, where it would be most useful for people who want to know about MMORPGs. I expect you will respond with the point that the information i wish to posts already on the wiki pages i'v shown you, thus it does not need to be repeated. And i will protest that with the following: My post is about archetypes and how they relate to MMORPGs in general. The posts i linked are each about a single specific archetype. In addition, it would be better to have my summary of these in the MMORPG page, seeing of how it would benefit anyone who is seeking to gain knowledge about archetypes or MMORPGs, and does not know any of them by name. If you still don't allow me to post my information for the reason of me not being able to verify that MMORPGs use these archetypes, i must protest you delete the articles i'v linked, since ALL OF THEM TOGETHER claim that the EACH archetype i'v stated are OFTEN associated or used in MULTIPLE MMORPGs, and being that me also stating that is the reason for MY post being deleted. I see any further opposition to my posting as blatantly unfair; again i'm not trying to be rude, but i have never had this problem with any other of my posts, some of which i posted without being logged in, and i am beginning to get frustrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs)
- First: whenever you write on a talk page, please always finish your post be signing. The easiest way to do that is to add four tildas (~~~~). That will add your name and timestamp of your post. Thanks.
- Second, the truth is that there are over 3 million articles on English Wikipedia. A large number of them have significant problems, including violating core policies. So, no, the existence of those other articles doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the information should be in this article.
- However, having said all this, maybe other editors are willing to agree to add some/all of this information. I'll start a thread at Talk:Massively multiplayer online role-playing game and see what other editors think. If they concur that this is really a "common knowledge" kind of statement, I'm willing to let it go. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad we could come to a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliteShnipes392 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Second time today
Hello Qwyrxian, could please have a look at this anonymous IP edit at KHAS-TV? [9]. As always thank you for your time, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- FYI: I've added the IP to User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Although, granted they're reverting material without comment or edit summaries, this one appears to me, to simply be a "local" who's objecting to the removal of the unreferenced list. I don't really see a connection between this and the 'localized slogan' campaign. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I left a note in your Black Sandbox (ewwww...), Anna, explaining essentially the same thing as Deconstructhis wrote above. However, if a CU says yes, then I would start to wonder about 1 of 2 things:
- The user is deliberately doing this to antagonize myself, Deconstructhis, or Neutralhomer, for some past event, since we're the three who most commonly deal with these problems.
- The user in question really is using some sort of source (reliable or not, possibly even personal experience in the industry), and is never going to be dissuaded; perhaps completely unaware of the whole nature and idea of collaboration.
- But still, probably different. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I left a note in your Black Sandbox (ewwww...), Anna, explaining essentially the same thing as Deconstructhis wrote above. However, if a CU says yes, then I would start to wonder about 1 of 2 things:
- Although, granted they're reverting material without comment or edit summaries, this one appears to me, to simply be a "local" who's objecting to the removal of the unreferenced list. I don't really see a connection between this and the 'localized slogan' campaign. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Username thing
Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've reported them to AIV for impersonating another user and then trying to slip in words into the middle of my warning making it look like I was the insulting one. I don't really think there's any more need to assume good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- The user is blocked. I guess he didn't know how transparent the project is. Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- But apparently he does know how to hop IPs....And thanks--one good turn deserves another, ne? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Happy to help. I've been keeping a bit of an eye on recent changes for IPs starting with 60. and and 124.1 Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- But apparently he does know how to hop IPs....And thanks--one good turn deserves another, ne? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- The user is blocked. I guess he didn't know how transparent the project is. Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Taboo of cat, dog and horse meat consumption in the Anglosphere
I think if one wishes to include beef or pork (don't forget chicken) to the See Also quick related issues quick reference in the Dog meat article, it would really not be a bad idea, even though I thoroughly enjoy eating beef, chicken and pork: on a traditional Buddhist and vegan level, even beef, chicken and pork would be considered inhumane. Dog meat is a controversial subject, and the English readers no doubt are exploring the ethics and reason of using such an animal for human consumption, and that study should not end with dog meat, but expanded to the ethics regarding all meat sources, especially cat and horse meat here in the Anglosphere. If the See Also section is to be expanded, let it expand, and use the (multicol-break) to break useful references into separate space-saving columns like this below: Template:Multicol
Template:Multicol-end 99.130.8.150 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks
for striking the comment. would you mind doing it in my talk page as well. just for the record. thanks. --CarTick (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't check to see if it was still on your talk page--I'll do that now. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Article re-review after edits
Thank you for your comments on my article (located at Articles for creation/Linwood Pendleton). I have done extensive editing of the article, finding a variety of third party sources and changing the format based on your suggestions. Can you please re-review the article and let me know if it is now ready for the encyclopedia? I really appreciate your help and constructive comments/criticism. Thank you! Mrlwiki (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I glanced at it quickly, and it looks much better--there's probably enough there to verify notability. I should have time to take an in-depth look at it within the next three days. One thing I noticed on a first glance is that the references are all messed up; it may have happened be because of the article move from one space to another. That's not a problem--it's something that can be fixed, but will just take a little bit of time (and can even be done after the article is moved into mainspace). Actually, I just realized I might be able to make the changes with an automated tool, so let me give that a try later on today when I review the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- After looking more closely, it appears that the references can't be fixed automatically; rather, by hand, each one needs to be changed into the proper reference format. I changed the first two; if you take a look at the draft, you can see how I did that, using the <ref></ref> tags, as well as {{Cite}} templates. This will take time. If you think you can handle it, please feel free to give it a try; otherwise, I'll come back and work on them as I have time and inclination. There's over 30 references, so it may take me a while. If you want to try the work, I recommend turning on advanced editing tools; you can do that by going to "My preferences" in the upper right of your screen, going to the Edit tab, then click on the 2 boxes at the bottom under "Usability features". This should give you, in your editing window, a choice marked "Cite". Then, on the left, there's a pull down menu called "Templates"; when you choose the appropriate one, a dialogue box pops up that gives you blank spaces that you can fill in the relevant fields, then formats it automatically. You can also type up the template by hand, as well.
- There are other things that could be improved in the article--for instance, I feel that much of it is overly long/detailed, but that can be done after the article goes live. But I think we should get the references fixed first before moving it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry
Will rephrase my post. Point taken. --Psychoscientist (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
user talk:Bishonen
You need to leave my post to Bish alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something, but why does this edit qualify as vandalism? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- it's not ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm...maybe I took it wrong; in part, it was due to the edit summaries in the responses, and the phrasing of the message itself; I think I also got the user mixed up with another IP vandal I was reverted via Huggle, and thought it was part of a different set of disruption. When I look at 125.'s edit history, I see a number of different bad faith comments...but I think I was reading more into it than I should have. I will apologize on IP's talk page (already blanked, so no warnings to strike). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- don't bother, stay off my talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Too late, I left my message there before I saw this one. Again, apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Confirming that messages from 125.162.150.88 are welcome on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC).
- Too late, I left my message there before I saw this one. Again, apologies. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- don't bother, stay off my talk. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm...maybe I took it wrong; in part, it was due to the edit summaries in the responses, and the phrasing of the message itself; I think I also got the user mixed up with another IP vandal I was reverted via Huggle, and thought it was part of a different set of disruption. When I look at 125.'s edit history, I see a number of different bad faith comments...but I think I was reading more into it than I should have. I will apologize on IP's talk page (already blanked, so no warnings to strike). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- it's not ;) 125.162.150.88 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Page move?
User Qwyrxian, do we have an agreement here to move the page from List of scandals in India by state to List of alleged scams in India? GaneshBhakt (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, definitely not. This article has been moved several times already, and we need to decide firmly on a title before moving it again. I think we may actually be running into a problem due to differences between varieties of English. I've asked the primary page editor to provide some input, so I'd like to at least give xem a day or two to respond; if no response comes there, I think we need to request a third opinion or list this with {{movienotice}} and try looking around (maybe WikiProject India) for more input. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: Edits to Wikiproject page
I noticed it was a mistake right after I reverted. The warning is already gone from the talk page, but I'll also leave an apology to the professor. – Zntrip 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Question from Aitwl
How can i add pictures to pages?Aitwl (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are a variety of ways once you're a confirmed user (this will happen for you automatically in a few days). Until then, please go to WP:Files for upload, and follow the directions there. Please note that since this is a living person article (I'm assuming this is for Peter Swirski), the picture will need to be "free"--that is, in the public domain or CC-BY-SA licensed. So, you can't use any pictures you pull from most websites, from a book jacket cover, etc.
- Also, I still need you to revert your last two edits, as they are in direct violation of WP:EL. I will do it for you eventually, but would rather you acknowledged and understood why those can't be in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
POV title tag
I understand your concern, but I wish the general public to know that there's a dispute on the title (they don't usually read the talk page). STSC (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
டேய் சுதர்ஷன் வாத்துமடையா
உன் ஏக்ஸென்டோடு உன்னையும் ந்யூடர் பண்ணட்டுமா? ஹ ஹ ஹா. எத்தன ஐபிய வேண்ணாலும் பிளாக் பண்ணு....விகிபீடியட்களான உங்கள காய்ச்சறேன் பார்..in offensive mode now ;) இதுதான் என் ஐபி (தற்போதைய): 117.206.100.197 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)