NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) |
Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs) →Date format: congrats |
||
Line 280: | Line 280: | ||
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=next&oldid=3565062 edit] when a date first appeared in the article and it was corrected at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=6574623 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=390765183&oldid=390748589] Then you changed the date format of ref. to DMY like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=next&oldid=398159347 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. [[User:Oda Mari|Oda Mari]] <small>([[User talk:Oda Mari|talk]])</small> 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=next&oldid=3565062 edit] when a date first appeared in the article and it was corrected at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=prev&oldid=6574623 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=390765183&oldid=390748589] Then you changed the date format of ref. to DMY like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Japan_naming_dispute&diff=next&oldid=398159347 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. [[User:Oda Mari|Oda Mari]] <small>([[User talk:Oda Mari|talk]])</small> 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Congrats == |
|||
... in being an admin. Unfortunately, Magog the Ogre will still be my favourite admin. --[[User:Bobthefish2|Bobthefish2]] ([[User talk:Bobthefish2|talk]]) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:09, 22 July 2011
TV station vandal
We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I've now created an edit filter that will log edits by this vandal. You can see the filter at filter 426 (sysops/EFMs only) and its log at [1]. Hope this helps track the socker. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you see an edit by this vandal that isn't caught by the filter, point me to it and I'll see what I can do. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Help with interested party repeated vandalism
Hi Qwyrxian - I need help corrected a living person bio page that has been repeatedly vandalized by an interested party. Is it possible for me to discuss this with you in email? I am looking to correct the page to a neutral tone, remove incorrect or slanted information and would like the page protected, but am not sure where to turn for help. Every time I try to correct the page, the interested party reverts my edits. Please help? =( Ellie Dahl (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's generally better to discuss issues here on Wikipedia, but if it's more comfortable for you, you can e-mail me by going to the left side of this screen, opening the "Toolbox" menu, and clicking the "E-mail this user" link. However, you need to do know right away: you need to never make an edit like this one from Talk:Susan Polgar again. Specifically, you attempted to reveal the identity of another Wikipedia editor, which is specifically forbidden by WP:OUTING. I'm going to ask for that edit to be suppressed (meaning it will disappear so that it can't even be seen in the history). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Jat people qualifier
Your clarification was spot on. I got that user name mixed up with someone else who keeps bringing up similar points without any "proof", and despite numerous attempts at explanation. I shall leave a mea culpa below your comment. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
RCP proposal
Adamrce, Anna_Frodesiak, Baseball_Bugs, Csloomis, Cntras, Evaders99, Fæ, Shrike, Qwyrxian, WWGB, Who.was.phone:
met you guys at edit conflicts for undoing vandalism/ warning the same vandals/reporting at AIV.
I've made a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Recent_Changes-_tags_for_patrolled_and_reverted_edits. This is regarding managing vandalism at RCP. What do you think?Staticd (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Word Macro trick
I see you alphasorting lists sometimes. As you have surely encountered, sorting a list in Word or other programs groups all bluelinked items together because they start with [[
There is a trick to get around that.
- First search and replace all * [[ with *[[ (get rid of the single space and make them consistent)
Then record a macro that says:
- Search *[[
- Right arrow backspace backspace to delete the [[
- Go to end of line (click "end")
- Type bunnybunny
Then run the macro a zillion times. It will change this:
into this:
Willowdale school]]bunnybunny
Then alphasort the list.
Then make a macro that says:
- Search bunnybunny
- Remove bunnybunny
- Go to start of line (click "home") and right one space to get past the *
- Type [[
You can keep the macro forever to use again and again. Saves oodles of time.
Tip: Keep a superwide Word document on the desktop so that almost certainly nothing linewraps, which can screw things up.)
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks; I've used a similar method before myself for stuff done outside Wikipedia. Whether or not I use Word to alpha-sort lists on WP depends on how long the list is; sometimes, it's practically the same speed to do it by hand when the list isn't too long. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Get Editpad or Editpadpro. Soooo good. The former is free. It's a simple Notepad, but with extra stuff, even macros and highlight-and-alphasort on the spot, and make-all-first-caps, and very easy search an replace, and stuff like that. Plus it's like a notepad but with tabs like firefox.
- Microsoft Word drives me crazy. It's always so busy trying to guess (incorrectly) what I want and make it easy for me that I just want it to stop. Ever try to do indents and numbering and bullets and such? It just won't stop trying to guess what you want, and it's waaayyyyy off and you can't stop it. It's like a retarded person trying to take over what you're doing and show you how. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
From IP
Why do you keep deleting my posts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.85.28.12 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted your post on Korean cuisine because it was personal opinion, and very offensive opinion at that. Your other posts to my userpage were reverted by someone else, correctly, because they were vandalism. So, if you start posting legitimate information to the encyclopedia, I won't revert you. If you keep posting vandalism to user pages or the mainspace, I or someone else will continue to revert you, and you'll be blocked. Your choice. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
TV station vandal - Black sandbox closure
I was just writing the section below in the black sandbox to be placed right at the top as a final post. But, by the time I got to the bottom, as you can see, I started to question purpose.
SPIs are good for range blocks which doesn't seem feasible. The whole purpose of SPI is to connect users, which we don't need. We know darn well they're connected, certainly better than anyone else. We know the pattern.
AIV blocks persistent vandals. They could easily challenge what we know to be the same old story.
Maybe we should just continue with black for a few months. If we don't allow the addition of anything other than clear cases, why not? The system is in place. It's easy with rollback. It seems better than prospective plans. Maybe the vandal will run out of steam? Currently, it's like slow motion whack-a-mole. Little effort.
Nobody wants this bone out of our throats more than I. But, we could get dragged into more work otherwise. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Winding up this sandbox
It seems we are ready to move this to SPI. Ages ago, I tagged a few as socks with: 98.82.167.40 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as the sock master.
HelloAnnyong's reply was slightly unclear. I gather that we should start the SPI with 98.82.167.40 as master, and paste in the list below. Qwyrxian: Would you like to do the honours? I suggest stripping away the comments at the end of the lines, and adding a short summary of what's happened in the SPI. I don't know whether we should alphasort the list or not. Your call. Yippee!!
Well, not really yippee. We will still be doing the same thing. The only difference will be adding the IPs to the SPI instead of here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
And Qwyrxian, your last comment on this page was to rollback without checking each one. Yes! That's what I've been doing.
Finally, HelloAnnyong's advise might not be best after all. Qwyrxian's plan of simply sending the IPs to AIV could be best. I don't know. Actually, continuing exactly what we're doing here seems most efficient. Damn. This whole thing bites. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit tired at the moment, so I don't want to figure out how to do all of that tonight; tomorrow I'll likely be busy all day, possibly the day after. But I'll likely get to it tom. or Tuesday, and, if not, at the worst, on Wednesday (our time). However, one positive note: I don't know if you're aware, but Cluebot has "learned" that these edits, at least on WMBB, are "vandalism". My guess is that it looks to see which edits by IPs are being regularly reverted as vandalism; it may even have access to Huggle whitelists or other ways of measuring reliability of reverts. So maybe the longer we keep at it, maybe eventually Cluebot will start to take care of it for us! Of course, that user can always revert Cluebot, but, such is life.
- With the SPI, one thing I'll want to find out is if maybe we can get a set of small rangeblocks that would eliminate most of the bad behavior. I've seen that done before on ANI, where one range was obviously too large, but the majority was coming from multiple smaller ranges. Maybe one of the CU experts can figure something tricky out. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Clever bunny. You're talking like a real gumshoe. :) There's also the edit filter thing. You rest. Let's pick this up at your leisure. There's no hurry. Lots of mallets, easy whacking, retarded mole.
- Of course, the huge question from all of this is: In nature, are some moles retarded? You never see a retarded dog. Sure there's the Basenji. But they're consistently stupid. You never see, like, an obviously mentally retarded border collie. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Localized TV station slogans. It looks like they are running at about a week or more to begin initially responding to requests. Note that this won't actually stop the editor entirely: just recently, I've been seeing the editor also making unsourced changes to dates, to the names of employees, etc. But that actually happens all of the time from other good faith editors, too, so that will just have to be handled manually. Later I'll also open an SPI, just in case there's a set of magic micro-range blocks that can be applied. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- HelloAnnyong says rangeblocks won't work. If one small one will, I don't see it worth the human resources. In light of that, plus what you've said about edit filter, and the fact that AIV requires adequate warnings at user talk, I think we're best to avoid these unnecessary keystrokes and just keep rolling back and using black. Least effort. Lesser of all evils. Hope he runs out of steam. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'll rolling and sending to AIV; part of the goal there is to maybe get admins seeing the same AIV report over and over, and maybe one of them might be willing to help find another solution. Hopefully in a week or two we can get up an edit filter that will work. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- HelloAnnyong says rangeblocks won't work. If one small one will, I don't see it worth the human resources. In light of that, plus what you've said about edit filter, and the fact that AIV requires adequate warnings at user talk, I think we're best to avoid these unnecessary keystrokes and just keep rolling back and using black. Least effort. Lesser of all evils. Hope he runs out of steam. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, I'm pretty sure we're arguing with the IP of User:AmericaIsNumberOne there.--Atlan (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you have evidence for that, you can re-open the SPI case and have the IP blocked, at least temporarily; or, you may be able to contact the blocking admin directly and resolve it faster. Is warring over this name something that AmericaIsNumberOne did before? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, here for example. Edit warring over According to Jim cast members is something he and his other accounts have done on a number of occasions. The IP is not very active, and there's no block evasion to prevent if it doesn't edit anymore. If it does become active, I will re-open the SPI. I currently have no indication that he is editing through new accounts.--Atlan (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Tamil Kshatriya Merge
Yes I'm really busy but sure I will do my best to add my conclusion before the end of July so that we can move forward. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, that sounds fine; I'll leave a note on the merge discussion. If nothing comes in by sometime in August, I may recommend going ahead with an RfC anyway, just because I hate to leave the discussion floating forever. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not revert, I edited
I just edited the article, I never clicked on the undo button, lol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Diligent007 (talk • contribs)
- Please see WP:3RR, and you'll see that a revert is defined by what you do with the article, not by what buttons you pushed. 5 times in the last 24 hours, you have undone the changes of another editor. That breaks 3RR, which is a bright line rule. Don't worry, your first block will be short, and, after that, you can come back to the article and continue the discussion. Maybe even other editors will have come to support your position in the meantime. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Kurmi K page
Feel free to do what you want to do with that page. I totally agree with you on the point that we can't have blank pages. I will create an account soon. That way we can be in touch. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Immaculate Conception Apostolic School
Ouch. Sorry y’all. My bad. TTFN. Y’all probably have a name for a chastened editor who slinks away humbly/petulantly for a long vacation….Zipcedric (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Admin nomination
- Why thank you--I will, in fact, accept the nomination. I'll sign it now, but it will take me a few days to write up my answers to the questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good. The acceptance, that is. How long it takes you to answer the questions, which often baffle me, is irrelevant to me. I fall into that group who do not need to see answers unless you are planning on morphing into a totally different character in the next few days. This nom may well be my first comment at RfA. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Your comments on List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters are quite good. Where is the appropriate place to discuss the overall concept of such list? Perhaps there is a possibility of creating a policy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the right place, I think, would be WT:Notability. The problem is, its been discussed to death, and there is some very fundamental disagreement about what is a notable list. Here's a list of all of the archived discussions about List notability; the most recent extensive discussions are probably Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 45#Lists and Notability, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 46#wording for new section on lists, and [[Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 46#Completed a big step on lists. I don't think I participated much on any of these, as I found them fairly late in the game. But if you take a look, you'll see that there is massive disagreement about what constitutes a notable list. The most extreme views are "List of X" is notable if X is notable and "List of X + Y" is notable if people say it is; vs. the alternative view which says "List of X" is notable only if there is an actual, published List of X that is identical in content to our list. If you read the current guidelines, (WP:LISTN), you'll see how awkward the wording is, representing the closest thing to a compromise that they could cobble together. I don't know if opening up a new discussion will get somewhere productive, but if you think you have a new way to approach the subject so that some progress might be made, I'd be happy to read and join. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
danwarp
That blog IS a reliable source-it is run by the creator of the show and some of the crew at the nickelodeon studios. Read up on your facts first.--76.77.200.175 (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you look at the article's talk page, someone else already mentioned that, and I apologized and re-added it. It's also already back in the article. Sorry, it was my mistake. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
TV vandal - AIV
I'm not sure reporting the TV vandal at AIV is best. If you do, he gets blocked, and continues with another IP. If you don't report him, we revert, he continues with the same IP. I think the latter is easiest. Fewer keystrokes for you, me, at AIV, for admin, and at black sandbox. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's an interesting plan. Let's try it for a while and see if they stay on the one IP. If they switch again even without being blocked, then we can rethink the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, but I'm already seeing many more IPs now, compare to a few months ago. Now it's a new one every few days. Before the same one for a month. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Policy query
Let's say an article has numerous highly reliable sources available, of which 80% say that A = X, and 20% say A = Y. All other things being equal, we would present both of those viewpoints in an article because it is not our job to determine which of them is "true". (Some people might argue that we should devote 20% of the presentation to the less common viewpoint, since it is accepted by 20% of the sources, but I am not too fussed about weighting in this example.)
Now, let's say there are 5 people in favour of presenting both of the viewpoints but, perhaps quite suddenly, 50 people turn up and say "no, we're only going to present one viewpoint and because there are so many of us we can do it our way: we have consensus, after all". Both sides to the dispute accept that consensus is not a vote.
What happens in this situation? Does one viewpoint get whitewashed? Does it get whitewashed even if it is the "majority" viewpoint from the sources found? What if the 50 people in fact say that even though consensus is not meant to be a vote, the numbers in this instance are so overwhelming that it may as well be treated as being a vote?
The above is food for thought. I know that something is going on somewhere, you see.
BTW, it would make a very good RfA question, don't you think? Perhaps I should strike this and ask it at an upcoming RfA <g> - Sitush (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- You ask a fair question; the short answer is that the "minority" takes the issue through dispute resolution, makes sure there really are 50 and not 5 with large sock drawers (or meat puppets), and, if necessary, moves all the way up through mediation and arbitration. The long answer will have to come later, as it's 4:38 am here, I'm up watching the women's World Cup Finals, and while I've got enough energy to make it through the game, I don't have quite enough to make my brain produce reliable prose. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Ross Corners
Hello!
You reverted this, saying that "as a Christian school, it's pretty obvious they teach from a Christian perspective; the evolution point was UNDUE".
This is a bit US-centric. In the US evangelicalism is synonymous with "Christian", but most elsewhere - certainly in Europe, if asked for their religion, people will say they are Protestant, Catholic, &c. Furthermore, to anyone not used to Evangelical Protestantism such things as affirmation of Young-Earth Creationism and denial of evolution are quite striking, and pointing these out implies in no way a viewpoint. I've had another go at it [2], but suggestions are welcome. 69.205.183.208 (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like the first sentence of your new version, as it clarifies that it's not just a Christian school in name only, and explains which Biblical perspective they take. They second sentence, though, is WP:UNDUE. You've picked one aspect of their code that you think is particularly interesting (i.e., controversial), and noted it as if it were especially important. Unless you can find a reliable secondary source that discusses Ross Corners' anti-evolution/anti-homosexuality stance, keeping that in the article is an attempt to slant the coverage of them (particularly, as you point out, to non-US audiences). You may think that those stances are particularly unusual, but that's just your opinion. I'm going to remove the second sentence, but, as I said, the first one seems good. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's fine, in fact. Anyone can go to the two articles linked there and understand what follows from what the people at Ross Corners profess. 69.205.183.208 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do think it's not undue, especially outside the US. It would be good to source their opinion though. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 08:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why are those two specific facts important? Looking at their [Statement of Beliefs], they believe dozens of things. Why didn't the user editor who added those two specific points also add that that they believe in a Trinity; in an actual personal Satan, have ambiguous views about divorce, or any of the other things on that page? It's not our job to pick out the opinions that they have that are the most interesting; rather, the catch-all overview of fundamentalism and literalism covers the overall perspective, and, as 69.205 mentions, editors can look at either the wikilinks or the academy's own webpage if they want all of the gritty details. Any time we pick individual details, when those details haven't already been noted as being "interesting" or "important" in reliable secondary, we have to question whether or not we're violating WP:UNDUE. To me, the POV that's being pushed regarding the school by focusing in on those two specific beliefs is pretty obvious, but the point is that we can't pick and choose details like that without justification. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's rather significant academically. I consider it a cogent summary of their syllabus. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 08:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe we're talking about two different things. I said above that I do support the current sentence: "The belief statement of the school is written from a fundamentalist and literalist viewpoint." I do not support the second sentence that I removed: "This includes affirmation of Short-period creationism and condemnation of homosexuality." The first sentence I believe, as you say, is a good cogent summary of their syllabus. It's the second sentence that seems to be an UNDUE choice of two particular points. I see no evidence on their page of beliefs that homosexuality or young earth creationism are any more or less important than their view on the Trinity, on lawsuits between believers, or on divorce. Is it possible that we are actually agreeing about what should be in the article, or are you asserting that we should be mentioning YEC and anti-homosexuality? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Some stances might be more concerning to students than to others; prep school students do not have to worry about divorce, will likely not face severe harassment for having different theological views on the Trinity, but hostility to differing views on creation and homosexuality could be cogent points of discussion for a school. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which is all your opinion; I could offer alternatives or argue that your opinion isn't correct, but the point is that we can't decide for ourselves what is or isn't important. If anyone has a reliable, independent source noting for some reason particular stances that the school holds are relevant (to parents, to students, to lawmakers, to protestors, to the King of Spain), and that point seems due, then we can include it. Until then, the overview is appropriate (as a summary of their opinion), but not random, self-selected details. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Some stances might be more concerning to students than to others; prep school students do not have to worry about divorce, will likely not face severe harassment for having different theological views on the Trinity, but hostility to differing views on creation and homosexuality could be cogent points of discussion for a school. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 15:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe we're talking about two different things. I said above that I do support the current sentence: "The belief statement of the school is written from a fundamentalist and literalist viewpoint." I do not support the second sentence that I removed: "This includes affirmation of Short-period creationism and condemnation of homosexuality." The first sentence I believe, as you say, is a good cogent summary of their syllabus. It's the second sentence that seems to be an UNDUE choice of two particular points. I see no evidence on their page of beliefs that homosexuality or young earth creationism are any more or less important than their view on the Trinity, on lawsuits between believers, or on divorce. Is it possible that we are actually agreeing about what should be in the article, or are you asserting that we should be mentioning YEC and anti-homosexuality? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Because that's rather significant academically. I consider it a cogent summary of their syllabus. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 08:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why are those two specific facts important? Looking at their [Statement of Beliefs], they believe dozens of things. Why didn't the user editor who added those two specific points also add that that they believe in a Trinity; in an actual personal Satan, have ambiguous views about divorce, or any of the other things on that page? It's not our job to pick out the opinions that they have that are the most interesting; rather, the catch-all overview of fundamentalism and literalism covers the overall perspective, and, as 69.205 mentions, editors can look at either the wikilinks or the academy's own webpage if they want all of the gritty details. Any time we pick individual details, when those details haven't already been noted as being "interesting" or "important" in reliable secondary, we have to question whether or not we're violating WP:UNDUE. To me, the POV that's being pushed regarding the school by focusing in on those two specific beliefs is pretty obvious, but the point is that we can't pick and choose details like that without justification. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Nelly Furtado page
Timbaland has coproduced 10 of the 12 tracks on her third album, "Loose". Nelly has also collaborated with Timbaland on various songs on his album, "Give it to me", "Morning after dark" and also before he co-produced her album, she had worked with him and Ms. Jade on a track called "Ching Ching". Timbaland had also remixed Nelly's "Turn off the Light" track on her first album. I would call this a long term association....Manas justice (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, on Timbaland, you are correct, my apologies. Do you concur that the rest that I removed don't count as associate acts? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
article: Jat people <about the removal of content>
Hello Qwyrxian,
Sikh-History has reverted some of My contributions to the article: Jat people. I have some reasonable doubts and believes that the information should be on the page. I have also shared My views for this. The explaination for the reverts, does not seems to be fair enough. You are quite an experienced One. So, I respectfully ask You to please join the discussion at Section: Experts' Assistance deeply Requested, about the Guidelines of Wikipedia. at Talk:Jat people. For which, I would be grateful to You! I have also invited Sitush to join the discussion. Could You also please put some light on the issue under discussion there.
Thanks! Sincerely: Abstruce (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Water Fuelled Car discussion
You have been cited and maybe you need to clarify if I am allowed to post on the discussion page of Water Fuelled Car. It seems that there is confusion among the editors about a couple of policies See below.Santilli.Carla (talk)CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)
- Yes, you're right. And, yes: "Uncredited" might be better than "discredited"! But whatever: We can't give undue weight to the magnecule theory, so either we have to find appropriately balanced reliable sources - or simply remove all discussion of it as "non-notable"...since, if mainstream science has not written about some theory - then it is certainly not notable. SteveBaker (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually (slaps hand to forehead), note the name of the person who started this thread. One can assume some connection to Ruggero Santilli, who invented magnecules.Prebys (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- You're close: Carla Santilli is a Director of MagneGas and wife of Ruggero Santilli. Still, WP:COI almost certainly applies here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
This is your message to Guyonthesubway on January 25,2011.
"Please re-read WP:COI. Your interpretation of it is flat out wrong. In fact the policy encourages people with COI to add their opinions on talk pages about how to improve articles. That's much better than having them edit articles directly; but, technically, COI doesn't even forbid that! Second, you may not remove people's comments from a talk page for having a COI. The only time you can remove comments is when the person is 1) vandalizing, 2) violating WP:BLP (and that's a tricky one), or 3) soapboxing about something not related to the article itself. In this case, the editor was clearly and directly pointing out things xe believes need to be changed in the article. Now, those changes may be wrong, and the request certainly wasn't phrased ideally, but that does not allow you to remove them. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)" Please give guidance ~~CarlaSantilliSantilli.Carla (talk)
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. [3] 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)
Congrats
... in being an admin. Unfortunately, Magog the Ogre will still be my favourite admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)