Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:20, 26 July 2011

My Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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 . 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)

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 · tag · 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Talk:Billi Bruno

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)

Thank you kindly for your support :). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Navy–Vieques protesters and supporters

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Notability/Archive 45#Lists and Notability, Misplaced Pages talk:Notability/Archive 46#wording for new section on lists, and

I will take a look at those discussions, but it is likely that there is not much hope of getting a policy. We are left with trying to delete particular lists, which also turns out to be difficult. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:22, 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)

No rush at all. It is of more than mere academic interest to me, as I think you probably understand. Enjoy the game. - Sitush (talk) 19:52, 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 , 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} (be free) 08:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are those two specific facts important? Looking at their , 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} (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} (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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Volunteer Response Team for ticketing purposes. elle _{vécut heureuse} (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 Misplaced Pages: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>-2011-07-18T17:39:00.000Z">

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 ¤ 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. 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:

1. An article's prose and references can indeed be different as long as they are internally consistent.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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)

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></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 was a pretty good response . --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 Misplaced Pages? An aspect of your personal life? Does his question have any connection to Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages whatsoever. But as you know (as a regular RFA voter), many of Keepscases questions are, for all intents and purposes, entirely unrelated to Misplaced Pages (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 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.

1. SPOILER talks about deleting info from an article. I deleted nothing.
2. 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.)
3. 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!
4. 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. )

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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 ". 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. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages--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 " 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. ) 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 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)

Understood; take your time. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 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)

I am keeping out of it now. It is going way off-topic at the moment. Your point about notes struck me earlier today, which is about three weeks too late. I need to do some digging. I am pretty sure it meant USD. I will print that now. - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Done it for you. MKY talk page lives again! - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 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-Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages. 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.)

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)

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 (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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I think some of the opposers were concerned about Jimbo. Maybe you should block him as your first admin action? :P --Σ _contribs 06:19, 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 contribs 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)

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 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:

1. Open RfA  Done
2. Respond to questions  Done
3. Deal with paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama  Done
4. Send thankspam  Done
5. Vandalize main page
6. Block everyone who ever opposed me or failed to see my utter genius
7. 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)

Re:

You have my appreciation for your thanks in my talk page →. --Lvhis (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)