| Revision as of 09:18, 10 July 2012 edit25 Cents FC (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers16,220 edits →Uttar Pradesh← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:06, 10 July 2012 edit undoHublolly (talk | contribs)180 edits →Intolerable behaviour by new user:HublollyNext edit → | ||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
| ] ]] 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | ] ]] 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Please desist from whipping up so much opposition. I apologized already. ] (]) 12:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:06, 10 July 2012
The alesha show
if you check the BPI website you will see that it is only certifed GOLD NOT PLATINUM SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!
Royal College Panadura, Royal College, Colombo and others
Hello. Fairly long time.
Maybe we should do something about these schools like Royal College Panadura and Royal College, Colombo. There's a war going on over the names. Should the title, lede, and infobox title all match? I don't know, but I think I prefer it. And what about Cossade? I really can't figure out whether or not this editor is making good edits. Anyway, maybe we get everyone to sort it all out at talk, and then there is something to refer to as the correct way. Also, some page protects may be in order after this is sorted out. The rvs are daily. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct. I kind of want to believe Cossde, given his experience...but part of me does not. See, the problem, as near as I can figure out, is twofold. First, there doesn't seem to be an "official name", or, if there is one, its not necessarily the same as the name used in reliable sources (which varies). There doesn't even seem to be an official website--Cossde has indicated that the schools have registered for wesbites, but apparently they're not running yet, and the old websites are unofficial. But the bigger problem is that there is apparently a major rivalry going on. I believe the main question is whether or not all of the schools are really "Royal Colleges", with some people pointing to the constitution and arcane legal docs, and others pointing to regular usage. I think Cossde even attempted to use the phrasing on a very old statue at one time to determine the name ordering. And it doesn't help, of course, that the "real" names aren't even in English. At the same time, the IP editors arguing against Cossde routinely insult and belittle him, and very rarely use the talk page (except for more insults).
- I've edited a number of the pages, and only acted administratively on one or two. And I have had a significant editing dispute with Cossde on the list of the alumni page relating to the need for refs and the use of honorific titles. So I find it very hard to judge, and reliable sources don't seem to be very clear.
- I guess what we need is a centralized RfC, with notifications on each page. I kind-of think that WikiProject: Schools is the best, because its fairly well watched (and I don't think there's an active Sri Lanka project). Perhaps the articles should be semi-protected at the same time, or maybe even fully protected (this might force people to discuss, especially if we intentionally protected Cossde's version...he'll almost certainly discuss no matter what).
- Does this seem like a smart plan to an impartial observer like yourself? I know you can't make the protections happen, but I'm sure I can rustle up someone to do that as long as it seems like a good idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good plan. And should I write to the Head Masters? Would that help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, a letter to the head masters would not help, because the response to said letter, even if you got one, would not satisfy WP:RS or WP:V. I've argued the same position before in other articles--sources need to be publicly released. They don't have to be free, they don't have to be easy to access, but private letters and communication simply aren't good enough.
- I've asked Cossde to give me a list of all effected schools; I don't know if Colombo and Panadura are the only 2, or if there are more I don't see. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good plan. And should I write to the Head Masters? Would that help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good plan. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi guys, Im sry to barge into your discussion. I came across on it when I came to answer Qwyrxian question. And Yes I will all ways come to discuss :).
- The issue here is larger than what it seems here. Royal College Colombo is one of the premier schools in the country and as gained much animosity from many quarters. Its common to see attacks on the school that are verbal, written and even physical. Due to the popularity, it is often refereed to as Royal College or at times Royal College, Colombo 7 from the postal area where its located which is often considered the most exclusive residential area in the country. Due to the schools prominence other schools have adapted the same name as it is a common case in Sri Lanka and in the rest of the world. The schools at are referred to here are such (Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila, Panadura Royal College and Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya) and there is another school that have not been part of this edit war (Ranabima Royal College). My personal opinion is that these edit wars are not carried out by any in these schools or any one with the best interests of the schools, but is gone with the aim of using it to attack Royal College Colombo. As you can see the same editor is editing Royal College Colombo in a non-productive manner. My suspicions are the it may be User:Masu7 who has attempted to mirror any edits done on Royal College Colombo on Nalanda College Colombo and when I attempt to correct the factual accuracies with refs; he has carried out edits on Royal College Colombo and associated articles that can be considered non-productive and lashed out at me in everything but good faith. My suspicions are based on remarks made by him such as this (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Cossde&diff=480774445&oldid=480638855). There is no sort of rivalry between Royal and Nalanda College, Colombo but it seems that they have a common tendency to emulate Royal :S (eg: Royal–Thomian and Ananda-Nalanda, EDEX and Future Minds, Royal Parade and Nalanda Walk, Saga (event) and Sandwani, etc). So this could be the underlining story in this whole edit war. Cossde (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- THanks, Cossde; I'll try to start up an RfC in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The RfC is open at WT:WikiProject Schools#Naming issue for public schools in Sri Lanka. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
EW at Narayana sukta
There is a war going on at Narayana sukta. I tried to do some clean up of poor sourcing etc but am otherwise uninvolved. I have had a chat with the two protagonists, one of whom is almost certainly also editing as an IP. I am away over the weekend - could you perhaps keep an eye on it? - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was also away this weekend. The edit warring seems to have stopped at least temporarily. I've added it to my watchlist. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Undelete request
Could you please restore Cheongye Kwan? It was deleted at AfD for failing GNG. I helped the editor at IRC. I just discovered (via IRC) Barry Cook, which appears to be the same thing rehashed. The creator denies any connection, but I think it's quite a coincidence, and would like to know if there's any verbatim text. If you can, pls dump it into one of my sandboxes. If you can't perhaps another admin stalker can. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I saw it go red. It's still around. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Jazz
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Jazz. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
He's baaaack
And apparently isn't getting the hint. diffs history of COPS(TV) series Repeat offender, fresh off his block, is back making the same edit, yet again. NECRAT 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Digital Divide article
Hello. Without discussion, you removed the material on the MIT project Imara in the Digital divide article. And you also removed material on Boston's digital connection initiative. You wrote in your comment that "We're going to need some independent sources that indicate that project is important to include". This material on the Imara project at MIT has been in the article for some time before it was deleted along with much other material in Fall 2011 for unclear reasons. The Imara project verbiage had citations, mostly from MIT publications. It's quite self explanatory. It's subsidized by Cisco, Google, et al. ( http://imara.csail.mit.edu/ ) It's been around for many years. I don't see your point. I've been editing Misplaced Pages since January 2005, so I don't sloppily put information into articles as you might wish to note. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The length of time its been in the article, as well as the length of your volunteering, do not trump the fact that Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate list of information. Given how broad that article's topic is, we should only be covering the most important information (that is, information that is of due weight). That is going to mean information that is verified by independent sources. Otherwise, we have no reason to believe that MIT's program is particularly important or noted in the real world. You provided citations, but they were only from MIT publications. Without independent citations, the information does not belong in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I find your strong-armed approach inappropriate. Had I enough time, I would attempt to take it to arbitration. But one is better left speechless at your actions and duly note them for future reference despite one's having tried to take your points. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? I'm merely following policy here; however, others may interpret policy differently in this circumstance. You're more than welcome to get other opinions. The first step to dispute resolution would be to open up a discussion on the article talk page. I'll go ahead and do that for you. If there is a consensus that the information belongs, I will certainly follow said consensus (pending, of course, possible further DR). If no one responds to that discussion, we can try to request a third opinion. You indicate you may be busy, so I'll be sure to link to your comments here in case you don't have time to respond. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- No thanks. I'm not interested in pursuing this any further or I would have done so myself despite being busy. I want to get back to editing, not conversing to no end. Thanks for your comments, despite our difference of opinion. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? I'm merely following policy here; however, others may interpret policy differently in this circumstance. You're more than welcome to get other opinions. The first step to dispute resolution would be to open up a discussion on the article talk page. I'll go ahead and do that for you. If there is a consensus that the information belongs, I will certainly follow said consensus (pending, of course, possible further DR). If no one responds to that discussion, we can try to request a third opinion. You indicate you may be busy, so I'll be sure to link to your comments here in case you don't have time to respond. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I find your strong-armed approach inappropriate. Had I enough time, I would attempt to take it to arbitration. But one is better left speechless at your actions and duly note them for future reference despite one's having tried to take your points. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You might
want to see Spaceman Spiff's recent post on my talk page about an editor you've run across. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see, on your page or in the history, where SpacemanSpiff commented. I also don't see anything specific on your page that concerns a topic I'm familiar with. Could you point me more specifically at what you're thinking of? Qwyrxian (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. See Ancienzus (talk · contribs). Now blocked as a sock of Kalarimaster. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just to note, I'd asked Elockid to check over email to avoid WP:BEANS which is quite important in this particular case (and also informed Doug then as I saw him post there, didn't notice that Q was also being sucked in to discussions with him). We've had way too much disruption from him in the past and I hope a few more people can get familiar with his behavior to identify him early on. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. See Ancienzus (talk · contribs). Now blocked as a sock of Kalarimaster. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, just wanted to say thank you for your quick and decisive work removing the nonsense from Anita Sarkeesian. I didn't like the look of the new section either, but lacked the experience to take such unilateral action, or at least to be able to articulate why it was so necessary. Keep up the good work! Euchrid (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Gary Multani
Hey, dear. I want your help. Please warn (or whatever) to User:Gary Multani. Check his edits on Babbu Maan, he spoiled the article badly by repeating same statements many times and more. I can't handle such new comers, so requesting you to give him a sense or tutorial. It irritates me on someone unfamiliar with wiki spoils articles created by myself because created then after reading much about wiki, it's rules, article layout, neutrality etc.. 'll be grateful to you. TariButtar (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've reverted Gary's edits, and commented on his talk page. I've also made significant edits to the article as well.
- However, I do have to say that if you get irritated when new editors change your articles, you're probably not a good fit for Misplaced Pages. Our core means of working is for information one person adds or changes to be further edited and changed by others. Sometimes the changes aren't helpful, but sometimes they are. Sometimes they need modification, or sometimes should just be rolled back. If you're unhappy with such changes, it's going to be difficult for you to work on Misplaced Pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
rhetoric a useful background
I wonder what you might think of this book.
I quite liked the parts where they ripped fluffy business books and talked about how the "new" is really recurrent. I didn't like it as much when they actually tried to be a business book (vice commenting). But still...thought it was interesting how they had a different take and were informed by the background of one of the writers being a trained rhetoritician. (I'm not.)
TCO (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've not heard of the book before. I don't read many management books (and the ones I've read, I don't really like). Though, perhaps, that means I might like this one :). Thanks for the suggestion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Uttar Pradesh
I'm trying to develop article in GA manner.Saw your maintenance tag..can you please list the violating contents. Thanks a lot 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll explain in the next day or two. If you don't hear anything from me in a few days, go ahead and remove the tag. I can always come back w/specific suggestions later. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, as you wish...!!! 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 09:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hii
responsibility of montage issue is yours, you come to consensus on other montages, including american Indians article, then attack indian ethnicity articles Head12hunter (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- No sir. Consensus is that the montages should be removed on all articles related to Indian communities. You will need to get consensus to readd the montage. I have no idea if a similar consensus would hold on other articles--it's up to you if you want to explore the issues. You can't use the argument that another vaguely related article does something, so you can do it here, especially when there is a solid consensus against it. And no, you can't say that I have to first go to the other articles and fix them. There are nearly 4 million articles on English Misplaced Pages, I couldn't possibly touch more than a tiny fraction of that; and what each editor does is up to them, as this is a 100% volunteer project. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but i cannot agree with you on montage, you please discuss montage issue with admins and undo my montage Head12hunter (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have not added any references now or additional content in my recent edits, I have rearranged the notable people section, you cant deny it, just like that montage i completely disagree with your view Head12hunter (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- your view point of removing montage appears POV,
- three revert rule appeals to u also,
- It is ur responsibility to explain what is the difference u find in this article and other caste realtes articles Head12hunter (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- see any strong consensus, i will not accept POV Head12hunter (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hinduism in india article, khatri article, etc where is the consensus?? Head12hunter (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, first, please do not start a new section for every single comment. Use colons to indent each comment one level more than the last person.
- As for the montage discussion, it was held at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. You can see the specific discussion at WT:INB#Photo montages in infoboxes of caste/community articles. On June 18, regentspark, who is an administrator, summarized the discussion and found that the consensus is that montages should not be included in any caste related articles. You can read regentspark's summary of the discussion. As for Hinduism in India, that doesn't, I believe, count as a "caste related article". As for Khatri, I'll go remove the photos now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. The thread is Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly. Thank you.
You probably already know about this, but I have to include you by WP:ANI guidelines, sorry (that its so delayed also)...
F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑ici 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please desist from whipping up so much opposition. I apologized already. Hublolly (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)