User talk:Qwyrxian: Difference between revisions

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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

if you check the BPI website you will see that it is only certifed GOLD NOT PLATINUM SEE FOR YOURSELF!!!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good plan. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

THanks, Cossde; I'll try to start up an RfC in the next few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is open at WT:WikiProject Schools#Naming issue for public schools in Sri Lanka. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I saw it go red. It's still around. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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^{Speak to me} 01:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [who's 'we'?] 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

The length of time its been in the article, as well as the length of your volunteering, do not trump the fact that Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah, my bad. See Ancienzus (talk · contribs). Now blocked as a sock of Kalarimaster. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^ϟ 14:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Fine, as you wish...!!! 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS^ϟ 09:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

see any strong consensus, i will not accept POV Head12hunter (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in india article, khatri article, etc where is the consensus?? Head12hunter (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from whipping up so much opposition. I apologized already. Hublolly (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His post here came before your apology. Why don't you stop trying to go everywhere around this place to defend your (IMHO) indefensible behavior? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite their geographical disparity, the current tranche of IPs at Talk:Saini form some definite groups. I did the following analysis last week, based on the IPs then listed at the (unarchived) page:

• 144.30.121.42 - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
  • 144.30.69.176 - University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas
  • 76.125.76.20 - Comcast Cable, Little Rock, Arkansas
  • 76.125.80.61 - Comcast Cable, Little Rock, Arkansas
  • 76.125.76.20 - Comcast Cable, Little Rock, Arkansas
• 99.233.29.22 - Rogers Cable, Toronto, Ontario
  • 99.233.132.217 - Rogers Cable, Toronto, Ontario
  • 74.198.9.233 - Rogers Wireless, Toronto, Ontario
  • 74.198.9.232 - Rogers Wireless, Toronto, Ontario
  • 74.198.9.141 - Rogers Wireless, Toronto, Ontario
• 106.78.110.95 - Idea Cellular, Gurgaon, Haryana
  • 106.78.123.27 - Idea Cellular, Gurgaon, Haryana
• 106.76.173.208 - Idea Cellular, Delhi
• 49.14.114.229 - Idea Cellular, Delhi
• 59.164.4.229 - Tata Communications, New Delhi
• 108.17.0.34 - Verizon, Edison, New Jersey
• 24.23.165.181 - Comcast Cable, San Jose, California
• 68.98.36.5 - Cox Communications. Phoenix, Arizona
• 162.71.106.236 - Christus Health, Katy, Texas

The first two groups (Arkansas & Ontario) are the most vociferous. I have no idea if they are meats or even proxies but at the very least it seems certain from the edits that they are each moving around their own two IP ranges. I also suspect that the last (162.*) may be connected to the Arkansas situation, and I know that Dewan357 is based in New Jersey, has a Verizon account and is likely to be on their vacation around now.

None of this - nor the frequent failure to sign - amounts to anything more than a fishing expedition at the moment and therefore it is pointless taking it to WP:SPI. However, there is also a confirmed (& blocked) sockmaster & puppet on that talk page from around April. Can you see any connections there? Whatever is going on, it is very, very odd. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dewan has Verizon, but his primary is Optimum Cable (or something like that) and there's numerous coffee shops and libraries that he uses. —SpacemanSpiff 12:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Comfort women". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 July 2012.

• a definition of grave-dancing that becomes part of the Wikipedia lexicon, the response edits here, as well as that respondent's edit history on that particular page could be used as illustrative examples. Shearonink (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• or a need to illustrate attempted outing, this edit might work. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances - given your paranoia and obsession with getting me into trouble.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, at all, in any shape, form, geometry, infiltration procedure, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

Never. Ever. Forever.

To eternity and beyond - when our atoms become the reminants of the destroyed solar system, to drift through the universe and from which anything can happen - be it that they form a new planetary nebula and solar systems with new life forms which devlop their own computer technologies and internets and wikipedias telling the same thing to simalar editors, or crushed and shredded by black-holes, whooshed through wormholes (should such cosmological topology exist in spacetime fabric), and collapsed into the big crunch or frozen solid in the "deep freeze" end to the universe.

Except that you will not edit my talk page. Not ever. For all time.

Understood? Sparkling clear as a wine glass? Actually - is diamond opaque in comparison to what I just said?

I trust we understand each other.

Goodbye (as in I am leaving WP for a short break, not permanently). :-/ Hublolly (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received this message, too. Qwyrxian, I understand your desire to avoid overreaction, but Hublolly does not and does not want to understand the rules of conduct here. It seems impossible for him/her to assume good faith. this edit alone qualifies for a block, as does this one. Hublolly is creating a poisonous atmosphere I have rarely witnessed. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, also with Patrick0Moran. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]