User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deerfield High

IN REGARDS TO DEERFIELD HIGH SCHOOL PAGE.

Please view:

http://www.edline.net/files/_bQIse_/4119fd6b30ee215c3745a49013852ec4/All_StateA.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.235.157 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That requires a password, so I can't. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In REGARDS TO DEERFIELD HIGH SCHOOL:

Unfortunatly the article I sent you is blocked. It is a list of Illinois All State Debaters since 2000. In my edits I noted those who were from Deerfield high School and were all state multiple years. I do not wish to have anything regarding John Lee's hand motions or Sam Rothbloom's ego (that is the words of a less intelligent friend haha). All I wish is for the last line to be "The 2010-2011 captains are Sam Rothbloom and John Lee."

Can the information in regards to debate read as follows?:

The Congressional Debate team (Student Congress) is ubiquitous, and is one of the largest clubs at the high school. It has been one of the premier programs in the Illinois Congressional Debate Organization for the past decade, and over the past four years has established itself as the best team in the state. The Deerfield team has claimed first place at every congressional tournament for the past three years. The team has had a number of the top debaters in the state over the past decade. The Deerfield debate class of 2011 is one of the largest and most talented groups of seniors in ICDA, and has won an unprecedented number of awards at regular season tournaments, the tournament of champions ("TOC"), and the State Tournament. Notable alumni include: Chris Edelman, Gideon Sylvan, Jacob Klein, and Michelle Fox. The 2010-2011 captains are Sam Rothbloom and John Lee. 75.26.235.157 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No. That paragraph is full of POV words (see, specifically WP:PEACOCK). Wikipedia article must be written from a neutral point of view. What you could say is "The Congressional Debate team is one of the largest clubs at the high school. The team has claimed first place at every congressional tournament for the past three years. + REFERENCE." That last part means you need a reliable source, like a newspaper (not the school paper--a real newspaper), magazine, or maybe the official website of the state debate organization. Claims like that require sources, and they need to be written neutrally (that is, what is fact, not what your opinions are about how great the team is). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Thank you for your comments earlier. I have added the appropriate diffs requested to the | noticeboard. Many thanks --Lucy-marie (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Logic Wireless wiki page

Hello Qwyrxian: A user by the name of LonnyBaxter has been vandalizing the Logic Wireless page for the past 3 days now. I have had to go in there and change the page back several times. Is there anyway we can put a protect on the account? Thanks, MM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.5 (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm guessing that you are User:Shelleyboothbishop based on the page history for Logic Wireless, so I left you a long message there. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Pup Dawgs entry

Hello Qwyrxian... lol... no i'm not pup dawg... just trying to enter him in the system... at first I created his entry under my name Pamlockett and tried to link it to his name under current on air staff in WJMN's article but it wasn't working, so I thought maybe it was because it was under my name. I now realize that had nothing to do with it!!! At the moment I'm trying to add a reference, but I'm having a difficult time. one of the pages I wanted to reference was http://thephoenix.com/thebest/boston/2009/arts/dj/ but I'm not sure how to do it properly! Please help! Thank you sooooo much for calling me out!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pup Dawg (talk • contribs) 06:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can help you add that reference, but it won't fix the problem--that reference is to a local paper, to a local reader's choice award, and doesn't help prove the Pup Dawg is notable. We need more solid references than that to get the article to be able to pass WP:N. As a side note, I'd recommend moving the "article" to a sub-page of your Pamlockett account (I can do that for you if you like) because your Talk page is supposed to be used for messages between you and other users. Then, I'd immediately stop editing on the Pup Dawg account, declare on your Pamlockett user page that you edited under that account because you didn't understand how the system worked, and that you have no connection to the actual person DJ Pup Dawg. Technically, user are usually only allowed to have one account; I can see that you made a second one out of error, so there's no harm here, but having continuing to use the two accounts now could make people question your motives. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your discussion on Talk:Internet censorship in Germany in re to 83.216.240.165. I made a similar point on his/her talk page and I just don't think they get it. I believe these people get so blinded by frustration they don't care/want to understand WP's policies on verifiable sources or NPOV. Anyhoo, cheers! petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 10:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's almost as if they think we have some personal vendetta against them. petiatil ^{»User »Contribs} 10:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I collaborate with those German Wikipedia censors all the time. Still, it would have been nice if someone had added something in an edit summary at some point, or commented on talk page while reverting. Oh well. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat

Hi, Qwyrxian. I removed the legality issue in Japan. Please see Talk:Dog meat#Legality. I hope you understand my edit. Thank you in advance. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I really need your help

Dear Qwyrxian , i really need your help in expanding Sohag [city page ] .

first of all , i would like to improve it step by step the publish it all after finishing it . How can i do this ??

second , sohag references isn't available very much so i don't know what to do about that problem .

third , about the wikivoyage source problem how can i keep those photos in the page ??

at last , i live in sohag so it is very important to me to expand this page ....

thanks in advance Qwyrxian Ahmadpontymageed (talk) 4:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I can completely understand why you would like to expand the article--it's very common for people to want to explain about their home town. Unfortunately, especially for places where English is not the native language, it can be difficult. Wikipedia is very strict (or, at least, we're supposed to be strict) about sources. One of the key pillars of Wikipedia policy is verifiability, which you can read about at WP:V. In short, that policy statement says that all information in Wikipedia articles must be verified by reliable sources. A correlation of this is that if there is are no reliable sources that document something, then the information, by definition, cannot be given. The article itself can be kept, as we can certainly verify the town's existence, but it's the interesting and detailed info you're giving that we need to source.

Now, I know nearly nothing about Egypt, but, luckily, there's a whole group of people on Wikipedia who do: the WikiProject Egypt. These are all editors who have an interest in and knowledge about how to write articles about subjects related to English. I have just posted a request on one of their discussion pages, which you can see here. I'm hoping that they will have more ideas about where to go and look for sources. Stop by that page and say hello if you can; I'll be watching to see if anyone offers help.

Finally, as for the photos, what you will need to do is upload them to Wikipedia. Since those images are automatically CC-BY-SA by being on Wikivorage, you should be able to upload them with no problem. Instructions for uploading photos can be found at WP:Uploading Images. I've never added photos before, but I would certainly be happy to try to answer any questions I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Daddy Warbucks

I cannot find the date on particular comic panel as Little Orphan Annie has not yet been added to a searchable database. Also the blog listed was that of a published author, but based on your request I will replace it with another source I found. I will attempt to find more but given the age of the comic I don't think we can be picky. PeRshGo (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh??

You just sent me a note - I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. I added a wikilink to the word Eisenhower in Rachel Maddow's article, and you accuse me of vandalism?!?! Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.121.193 (talk) 06:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(copied from talk)

My absolute humblest apologies. I read the IP that made the previous vandalism (the one that added the word "Eisenhower") and yours adding the wikilink, and because they started the same, I thought they were the same. I am totally in the wrong here, for not reading the IP address correctly. What you did was perfectly fine, as I assume you didn't know that the Eisenhower was a remnant of earlier vandalism that a Bot mistakenly brought back. Again, I'm very sorry for mistaking you for another. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - simple mistake. I was just a bit shocked, but after looking through the edit history, I can understand how you made the mistake. Happy editing :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.121.193 (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your hard work, and persistence in finding a good image for a difficult article, I award you this barnstar. Well done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! In terms of "sum total human effort," I think this ended up being much easier to get than you trying to surreptitiously snap shots at your local market. I never thought of trying because I assumed a copyright holder, especially someone like Sherridan who makes his living off of his creative work, wouldn't ever want to give up his copyright. I do hope we don't have to fight with (an)other user(s)about the picture, though! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Splendid job...

... reporting IP 86.137.72.31. I issued an only warning and was watching him for the past... 10 or so minutes? I decided to leave him be to do focus more on something else, then saw on my watchlist that he was reported to AIV afterwards by you. I suppose vandals don't just leave, they sometimes continue to vandalize... anyway, just saying thank you is all. Xcalizorz (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. To be honest, I don't even always notice when "I" report someone, because I'm using Huggle. If you haven't used it before, it's quite handy (although you need rollback rights)--when you revert something, it automatically checks for previous warnings, determines the level of warning the person is on, and, if the vandal is already at 4 warnings, auto reports the person to AIV. I was just doing vandal-fighting with Twinkle before, but when I'm at home and not behind a firewall, Huggle is super fast and easy (as long as the user is very careful to only mark very clear vandalisms). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, I see. I'll look more into that, but I'm still new here (created an account two days ago). I still believe I need more... experience on this. I mean, I find vandalism reverting fairly easy since it's common sense to tell whether an edit is obvious vandalism or not, it really is, but I think I'll stick to old school reverting, at least for the time being. Anyway, thanks for bring the Huggle detail, I'll consider using it in the future. Xcalizorz (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

Sorry, was not trying to vandalise, I thought I'd messed up the page as I'd got two tabs open in my browser and the text I'd added had accidentally been deleted by me. I'll source the references than add the content back in, especially the influence of Islam on early Wesleyan practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.172.100 (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, although please note that I didn't mark the didn't mark your edit as vandalism--I was just removing it because it was unsourced, and a very contentious claim. You're going to need some significant, reliable sources to support both of those claims. But if you have them, it's a great addition! Qwyrxian (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, new to Wikipedia so still learning. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.172.100 (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. While I'm at it, I'll teach you one more thing: on talk pages (like this one), after you write a comment, put 4 tildas, like this: ~~~~. This automatically "signs" your post so that people know who wrote it and when. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see...

here. That trolls been stalking my contribs and vandalizing pages with edit summaries like "rv anon vandalism". There is also an ANI thread regarding this ip jumper. Appreciate the help tho on Candace Nelson. Tommy! [message] 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability

A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nickel Children

None of those awards listed in the poster is notable, and I can't seem to verify that it won them anyway. (Also, I cringe at the phrase "award winning." It's just so overused to the point of meaninglessness.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure; I can see how the may not satisfy notability in that case. I still think it asserted notability enough to not be speedied (and then the "article creators" get a few more days to try to find useful sources). Well, if you could report your findings on the pages AfD page, I'd appreciate it. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I elaborated my findings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wandering Jew

I just put in a temporary protection request - hopefully that will fix the vandalism problem soon. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you beat me to it by about 30 seconds; one of the Users stated on his/her talk page "Dynamic IP, I'll be at it all night long." Will have to keep watching and see if his/her attention spreads across multiple pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The IPs seem to be from all over the world, so I thought it was a blog stirring trouble. They'll get bored eventually... Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One at least has started to spread... [[1]] Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think they don't realize just how easy it is to keep up as long as there's enough people using Huggle. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rajkot

I corrected those names after looking at Gujarat tourism's website. http://www.gujarattourism.com/showpage.aspx?contentid=166&webpartid=1017&lang=English —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennstate4ever (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a commercial site, and not considered reliable information--see WP:RS, wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources. Also, I note that you copied information directly from that page onto wikipedia. This is a direct violation of WP:COPYVIO, which states that we never include copyrighted material on WP. I have added a second speedy deletion tag to the Rajkot article, accordingly. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's an official tourism website from the state government of Gujarat and not just a commercial site. I also have changed the language so let me know if I need to change anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennstate4ever (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. They claim to be "official", but if you read [2], you can see it's a private corporation representing the interesting of tourism related businesses. It has no connection with the government of Gujarat. I see that the copy-violation was fixed, so the speedy deletion notice was removed, which is fine. I am still on the fence as to whether that article meets WP:GNG, but I'll wait and think that over. Also, whenever you leave a comment on a talk page (like this one or one from an article), at the end of your comment, please "sign" by adding 4 tildas, like this: ~~~~. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page. utcursch | talk 05:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC) You're welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Hart

Thanks so much for taking this one up. I got embroiled in it a couple of years ago, but gave it up eventually as it was becoming difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff and I just ran out of puff. Sterry2607 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome...I don't know how I happened upon it in the first place; I vaguely recall Hart making legal threats, which peaked my interest :). It both helps and hurts that I know literally nothing about him, his poetry, over, really, anything about contemporary poetry at all.Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

Here are some pictures as our way of saying thanks! A great story in pictures Chrisrus (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad you did...somehow I missed this popping up! And you're welcome.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You should not whole revert by part

See WP:FIXED, Nothing on Wikipedia is in stone. No POV pushing. No original research. We can only discuss by WP:RS sources.660gd4qo (talk) 00:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're citing essays, not policy. It is widely accepted that, for controversial pages (e.g., pages about disputed places, about ethnicity debates like the Balkans, about the Middle East, etc.) should be handled with extra care. WP:BRD cannot be applied in this case. Please not that Oda Mari and I are not saying you can't edit the page, but merely that the best way to go about it is to start discussion on the talk page first, except in cases where there are clear policy violations (like long-term uncited information). Doing otherwise leads to edit warring and page protection, which gets us nowhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not essay. North east asia history foundation is a Academic institute. not essay. also, if you do not like North east asia history foundation, then you should add tag, or edit specific part. not whole sale revert by part. 660gd4qo (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear--I mean that WP:FIXED is an essay. As the page itself says, it is merely the viewpoint of one or more editors, and may or may not reflect consensus. That's the same thing I was talking about your use of Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus". Essays cannot be used as firm guidance in any aspect of dispute resolution, as the community has not approved them as official policy or guidelines. So what I'm saying is that the official talk page message stating that this topic is controversial, and thus changes should be done through the talk page first, not through aggressive changing of the text. I'm not saying that your additions don't belong, just that we need to tread lightly as we make revisions.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I already said, you should not whole revert by part. You shoud point out which content is wrong. and all cites backed up by relaible WP:RS, unlike your original research. 660gd4qo (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently missusing wikipdia guideline. You just don't like its edit. POV problem. 660gd4qo (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

But it's not a guideline, it's an essay. Essays, by definition, are not guidelines, and do not necessarily reflect consensus. You are allowed to cite essays as much as you like, but no one else has to accept them as binding. For example, I could site WP:BRD--per that essay, you're allowed to make bold changes, then we can revert them with clear edit summaries, then it's your responsibility to take it to the talk page and discuss your proposed changes. Notice we now have 2 essays contradicting one another. The fact that neither is policy means that neither "wins." What does "win" is the note at the top of the page that since this article is controversial, changes must be discussed on talk first.

Do I have a POV? Yes, of course I do, just as you and everyone else does. Does it effect my editing? I try not to let it do so. What I'm objecting to here is not your edits, but your method for making very significant changes to a very controversial topic. I really think it will be much better if we talk about this on the Talk page first. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My User Page

I haven't logged in for a while and when I logged on, all of my sub pages were gone. I read what you sent me and I believe that you, or someone you can possibly linked me to, deleted them. Could you possibly fill me in on this information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakens88 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One moment, I'll look into it. Okay, I recall this from about 1 month ago. At that time, I left you a message on your user talk page, stating that I believed you were incorrectly using your userpage. Per WP:UP, userpages are to be used primarily for Wikipedia related purposes, not for promotional reasons, as a free web host, etc. People are allowed to have a little bit (like, a few sentences) of info about their "real life," but not multiple pages like you had. The only other legitimate use of userspace is as a "Sandbox," which means that you can create drafts of pages you later intend to move to mainspace; that doesn't apply here, however, as none of those pages could ever be moved to mainspace for a variety of reasons (the biggest ones being WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:N). So, I asked that you consider removing the information yourself. However, after that point I took no further action, and, to be honest, forgot about the issue, since you stopped editing at that point.

Yesterday, administrator DragonflySixtyseven deleted your pages. I don't know what made him aware of those pages (I didn't inform him of your pages), but, if he believed that they were in violation of policy, he was perfectly within his rights to do so. At this point, your best is to ask that admin, which I see you have done at his talk page. He will, I assume, come along at some point with a response for you. In the meantime, I recommend that you go read WP:UP, which is the Wikipedia policy on proper use of user pages. I think that if you'll read it carefully, you'll see that the deleted pages are explicitly not allowed. Furthermore, your comment on DragonflySixtyseven's talk page makes me think you're not understanding the purpose of Wikipedia. That is, Wikipedia is a place for information about people who are already notable'. It is not a place for people to promote themselves in order to become notable. People being "interested in you" is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia main page; rather, in order to be in the encyclopedia, you have to have already been discussed in reliable sources (magazines, journals, etc.). Finally, you may want to take a look at WP:OUT, which has a great list of other websites that do allow you to host exactly the kind of information that you had here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Link

Hi! I am confused why the leading chemical engineering magazine can not be a reference source for users. Could you please advise on a better way for me to provide the link on chemical engineering subject areas so that it will not be removed?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandviewmedia (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Doug Williams

hi i was wondering if you could just delete the whole page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_williams_RsR_Guitar im just not good enough at wikipedia yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughbk (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can request that it be speedily deleted per your request as primary/sole author. However, don't feel bad--it has absolutely nothing to do with your skill at Wikipedia. Even the "best" wikipedian could do nothing to make that article survive, because the person the article is about does not meet the notability guidelines. Some day, perhaps, that Williams and/or his band will be notable enough for an article, and if they are, we'll certainly want one here. Please don't give up on Wikipedia--it's not too hard. At the top of your talk page there's some good links to help you get started writing and editing articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to have already been done. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Solar System edit/ acceptance/undo

I am so slow at checking for vandalism when checking under Pending Changes that someone else always seems to get there first. Anyway, I accepted diff only to find you then (at the same time?) reverted it as vandalism. Which of us was right? Thincat (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the included link is spam. The same user has added similar links to Jungle and one other I forget. Per WP:EL, we only want the best, highest quality external links, and advertisements should never be included; it's slightly possible that the editor is actually adding it in good faith, thinking it "helps" readers, but it seems far more likely it's being added for advertising/page promotion purposes.

As a side note, the only reason I and some other people are so fast is that we're using Huggle, which is a semi-automated tool that pulls up suspicious edits quickly, as diffs, and lets people revert and warn the user in a single click. It even checks the user's talk page for other warnings, and, if it identifies 4 or more pre-existing warnings, it will auto-report the person to WP:AIV. You need to have rollback privileges to use it, but as soon as I got it I shot up in vandal watching speed by a factor of 5 to 10...you just have to be really careful when you use it, simply because it's so fast it's easy to get over-anxious and make mistakes. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I can quite understand that the link might reasonably be considered WP:SPAM and (if the editor has a conflict of interest) they should request on the talk page, as you have quite righly advised at User_talk:PJS102. However, your comment said vandalism diff and I think it comes nowhere close to vandalism. So, it is your comment, not your reversion, that I question. Thincat (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:VANDAL, spam is a form of vandalism (it's the fourth one down on WP:VANDTYPES). Given that the link was to a commercial site (again, that's debatable, but it sure fits the bill for me), and I had just reverted the editor (with a good faith undo, rather than a vandalism warning) for the same site with a different topic, I felt it was fairly clearly spam, and that the editor's goal was to drive traffic to the website, not to provide "information" to wikipedia readers. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, we just have an editorial difference and that is fine. I think the site and the link are relevant and acceptable but you think it is spam vandalism. Anyway, the most important matter, communicating with the editor, you did even at your lightning speed so I thank you for that. Happy Huggling! Thincat (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Code (2nd nomination)

Was it the same author who recreated it after it was being sent to incubation earlier today? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was User: Nicoladegiovanni who recreated the article the time that I saw it. I don't know if it was the exact same username that previously created it, but earlier today 3 different usernames were confirmed as socks of Nicoladegiovanni (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nicoladegiovanni), so I suspect they're all the same person. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup... the same user who created the original. See: diff A pity, too... as all he needed was some patience, as the original IS now in the incubator, and when it does return, it will be worthy of the project, puppets notwithstanding. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog meat

Hi, Qwyrxian. I am not sure why you deleted a description.[3] It seems to be based on the following sources:

• Kim, Rakhyun E. (2008). "Dog Meat in Korea: A Socio-Legal Challenge" (PDF). Animal Law Review. 14 (2): 231.
• "Dog Meat to Be Subject to Livestock Rules". The Chosun Ilbo. Mar. 24, 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Son, Bong-Seok (Mar. 28, 2008). (in Korean). The Chosun Ilbo http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=200803281211152&code=940100. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! What happened is actually that I was re-reading the Korea section of Dog meat in order to respond to a comment on Talk:Korean cuisine. In doing so, I noticed that one of the citations was an opinion article, which we shouldn't use to source facts. Then, when I came back to Dog meat to make the change, I misread and deleted the wrong sentence. I've corrected it, re-adding the properly cited sentence and removing the one cited to the Korea Times opinion piece. Thanks again--I went too fast for my own good. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at you closely

I'm getting impressed by your edits, especially with BLP, I could train you if you want for adminship in the near future, like 2 or 3 months from now. Just do some article writing, and it's good. Secret ^account 14:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you for your very kind words, and offer. I know that I'm pretty new to actively editing Wikipedia. While my account stretches back to 2008, I only had about 50 edits before May of this year. But now that I've started doing this seriously, I can't believe I didn't start this ages ago (well, as many "ages" as the project has existed, I suppose). I know I still have quite a bit to learn before I'd even consider adminship--I still find myself inquiring about basic questions here and there. On the other hand, I know that I'm very good (he says arrogantly) at picking up formal systems, and feel very comfortable working with language within the boundaries of the project. I also have already developed some very strong opinions about how to interpret policies, which you may have seen at one noticeboard or AfD or another.

I know that if I ever do feel comfortable enough to start down the path to adminship, I have two major things holding me back. One is that I am much more of a "re-writer" than a "writer." I have done some hard work with sources on a few articles, but I'd be willing to wager that the odds of my ever creating a new article are quite low. In part, this is because the content areas I'm most interested in are not ones that lend themselves to new articles (I don't go in for the continually expanding zones, like entertainment, or underdeveloped zones, like non-Western areas like India). But even more so it's because I have much more interest in editing existing articles; working on disputed issues; monitoring vandalism, linking, and POV additions; even making major changes to existing articles to pull them in line with policy. Having seen a few RfAs, especially recent ones, it appears that some voters are adamant, however, that article creation experience is nearly a pre-requisite for adminship. If that's the case...well...I don't need the mop and bucket that much. The other problem I can potentially see myself facing is that I'm not shy about expressing my interpretations of policy. As I lean very strongly towards immediatist, along with strict interpretations of WP:BLP and WP:NOT), this could potentially put me at odds with other admins (although I don't actually know for certain where the typical admin lies on the meta-scale). If that means I won't be judged qualified to be an admin, that's also fine for me, because I think I'm more useful to the project following my principles (always subject to change, of course) then I am bending on them just to get admin tools.

So...tl/dr: Thanks! And an interesting offer I may pursue in the future, even though there may be "hang-ups". Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Your strict interpetation is the same as mine. Secret ^account 23:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MMA Article Fatalities

Hi there - you recently undid one of my edits on Mixed martial arts. I regarding counting fatalities in MMA. The article in question refers to "there have only been three documented cases of deaths after a sanctioned MMA event", which is incorrect. There have only been 2 fatalities after a sanctioned MMA event, and I changed the article to reflect that. I also provided a reference showing that the event in question was unregulated. This change was discussed months ago in the "Three deaths" section on the talk page. Given all these details, would you consider undoing your undo? FrancisC (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

hm...i see your point. I started looking at articles linked, but I'm out of time at the moment. I've gone ahead and self-reverted, as I believe you may be correct. I'll check back in later. I think it would help if you posted your full explanation on the talk page so that others can discuss as well. Thanks for the very polite message and explanation here! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much all there is :) There's a bit already there on the talk page, if you want to the continue the discussion there.FrancisC (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Viral Videos

Why do object to my references supporting the premise of Viral Videos?

The references are reliable, reputable, verifiable, from mainstream newspapers. Wikipedia says WP:V http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Because I think you're misreading WP:V, and forgetting about WP:NOT. That is, WP:V does not say that "everything which is verifiable should be added." Instead, how much to add is based on other content policies and editorial consensus. In this case WP:NOT tells us that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. We simply cannot list every "top 5 list" of best viral videos ever published. There's no reason to specifically pick out th Telegraph's list as particularly important. Now, I will say that I liked your addition of a source on Star Wars Kid--that is helpful and makes sense. But we have to abide by WP:NOT. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course not everything verifiable should be added. But aspects relevant to the article should be added. The combination of the Telegraph and Independent articles established (verified) the concept of Viral Videos.

Well... at least you liked the Star Wars Kid ref. I was waiting for that ref to also disappear. It is very frustrating when I've just spent time adding some text to see it be removed.

OK that's all from me. Maybe if you change your mind you might consider reinserting my refs but my input is over in this matter. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.69.111 (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nando's Chicken

But Nando's Chicken is the best chicken restaurant, do you have these in Japan? It's a fact here in North America and everyone is aware of their accolade. Please do not revert changes that are accurate and non-fraudulent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.14.170 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you check the history, I'm not actually the person who reverted your addition, it was User:Tommy2010. Nonetheless, I would have done so had I seen it first. The problem is right in your second sentence above--you claim "it's a fact," when it is, actually, nothing more than an opinion. If a high quality survey had been done, and a majority of respondents supported your claim, then you could make a statement like "According to a 2010 survey by ***, customers consider Nando's to have the 'best tasting chicken' among chain restaurants." Alternatively, if by "best" you meant "best selling," then, if you had a news story with business results, you could say something like, "As of 2010, Nando's is the highest grossing fast food restaurant in Country X." Both of the previous sentences, or anything like them, require a reference in a reliable source. You may want to take a look at WP:NPOV, especially the section marked as WP:ASF. Please let me know if you have any questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FIDH

Hello Qwyrxian! Thank you for your revision of the FIDH article. Something puzzles me: The current article is a mess. FIDH asked me to improve it and provided me with the relevant information. (They basically they translated the content of their French Wikipedia article). How can I include it correctly and in conformation to Wikipedia rules into the article in order to improve it and provide better information about the organisation? Would it be OK to reference the articles on FIDH's homepage? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.151.104 (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the article does seem a bit disorganized. There's a few things to cover, so please don't be overwhelmed.

The first, is that, since it sounds like you are involved with FIDH (either as an employee or volunteer), you should read WP:COI. This is Wikipedia's policy on having a conflict of interest; the main idea is that, while you can continue to edit the article with a conflict of interest, you have to be especially careful to edit in a neutral fashion (see WP:NPOV for more information).

The second thing is basically to take whatever "relevant information" FIDH gave you, and get rid of it. Okay, that's a bit harsh, but it gets to one of the key pillars of Wikipedia--all information that appears on pages must be verified by reliable sources. Now, information that comes directly from a group or organization can be helpful to know, and can sometimes be included, but self-published information is only somewhat helpful. This is actually where a lot of people with COI get tripped up, in thinking that Wikipedia is the place for them to present the "correct" information about their group/company/selves. However Wikipedia is never a publisher of original content--instead, all we do is summarize and repeat what has already been said by reliable sources (newspapers, scholarly journals, trade magazines, etc.). Good examples in the article currently are sources 2, 3, and 4 (I believe--I haven't checked them closely, yet). Anything that can't be verified by reliable sources is mostly not allowed; there are exceptions (like, for instance, the line "the core aim of the movement is to work towards the effective implementation of the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)" which is sourced to the FIDH website is okay, because we can rely on an organizations website to accurately portray what they claim is their core aim).

Now, I would love to help improve the article with you, as this certainly seems like a notable, worthy organization. Unfortunately, I already have several different projects on WP that I have lined up to work on, so I won't even begin to be able to look at the FIDH article for a while. I'll keep it on my watchlist and see how you're doing, and you're more than welcome to come and ask me more questions. As a side note, when you post on my (or any other talk page), be sure to finish your post with four tildas (~~~~)--this will automatically sign your post.

I hope this helps you a little to get started, and sorry I can't dive in whole hog. But please do feel free to ask any questions. One more place that may be able to help more directly with content and finding sources is Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights. Wikiprojects are groups of editors who work together to improve articles of interest to project members. FIDH is (as you can see on the article's talk page) marked as of interest to this project, so they may be a good place to get some more info or even other editors to help you. Different Wikiprojects have varying levels of support, though, so I don't know how active the Human Rights one is. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very useful information. I will try my best to improve the article. One first and overall question: How to edit the article's title, as the correct translation of FIDH's french name would be: International Federation for Human Rights. (Not: of) 90.46.241.10 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fairly easy--by moving the page. If a page move is possibly controversial, you should get consensus from other editors first. Since I see the name written that way on other websites, I'd argue it's non-controversial. Now, it's fairly difficult for people without accounts to move pages (because we're not allowed to just "cut and paste" because of licensing rules), so I'll go ahead and do that for you tomorrow (i'm off to bed at the moment). You can still edit the page in the meantime--everything will get transferred appropriately. As a side note, you may want to consider getting an account if you think you'll be editing often; it's certainly not a requirement, and some people prefer the "anonymity", but it can make it easier to handle some things, like page moves. Info on reasons why you might want an account, plus a link to sign up for one, can be found at WP:Account, if you're interested. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping me out with that. Btw I'am "Toovaloo" now. Toovaloo (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft on fermentation for article kimchi

The vegetables are sliced, highly seasoned with ingredients such as red pepper, onion, and garlic, and fermented in brine traditionally in large earthenware jars. Dried and salted shrimp, anchovy paste, and oysters are sometimes used as additional seasonings. The fermentation process is initiated by various microorganisms originally present in the raw materials, but is gradually dominated by lactic acid bacteria. Numerous physicochemical and biological factors influence the fermentation, growth, and sequential appearance of principal microorganisms involved in the fermentation.

The early and intermediate phases of fermentation are considered crucial to the taste of kimchi. When optimally ripened, acidity increases with sourness and a unique flavor with refreshing and coolness results from ethanol and other products. During fermentation, which takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions, the kimchi jars are stored totally or partially underground in cellars or sheds built expressly for this purpose. Recently, however, kimchi refrigerators have become very popular in South Korea. This household electronic device maintains the temperature for the proper fermentation of kimchi, saving the trouble of burying kimchi jars underground. (undated)

Note from WtcMike1976

Note: this was put on my talk page by WtcMike1976 on 25 July; I just noticed and am moving here now on 2 August.

Editing Cycklic vomiting syndrome by Mike.

Hi there, iam the one that have been aditing the content of cycklic vomiting syndrome. As you know there is not to much facts around the subject yet unfortunatly so iam posting what i have been able to come over sofar. Me myself have had a severe version of the desise for 6 years after a infection and iam posting the newest information i come over from the Cycklic vomiting forums and what me and my doctor have recently diagnosed and found out (suspect) when it comes to this syndrome.

I live in sweden so iam sorry about my spelling isnt the best and iam wery thankfull that you help me edit my text.

Its abit hard for me to find my way around Wikipedia and its message funtion so i hope you take this into considiration and i wish my message reaches you as iam abit confused when it comes to finding my way around this Wikipedia functions (its so new for me).

Anyway i wish you alot of happiness and good health and 1000 thanks for helping me out with the language. (undated)

Nando's

Hi Qwyrxian, I got this message from you earlier: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nando's. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Starting at level 2 warning, because I believe you are the same editor as the IP address that was adding the exact same links despite being warned that it is against policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The links in question have been on the Nando's wiki page for almost a year now so I do not understand why they are now being considered a problem given that thousands of people probably view this page a day and none have addressed this previously? Please advise. All the links I (re)added to the wiki page provide information that I feel Nando's customers will value and are directly related to the article; in no way constituting vandalism. Thanks Jc sed8d (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. Let me address each of your points in turn:

First, the fact that it's been on for a year now isn't relevant, because many WP pages have lots of things that policy say they shouldn't have. It just happens that someone adds them, no one notices (or some people choose not to take strict interpretations of policy), and they stay around. The only relevant question is whether or not the edits themselves adhere to the policies and guidelines.

Second, the fact that they "provide info to Nando's customers" also is irrelevant, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is concerned only with providing encylcopedic-level information that explains topics in a neutral fashion. It's not the same as other sites that exist to provide general information to people. The policy page WP:NOT has a lot of great info about the types of things we do and don't include on Wikipedia.

Finally, the links themselves. To judge the quality of any external link, have to check the relevant guideline: WP:EL. The links you were seeking to re-add fall under two specific issues on WP:EL. First, look to the subsection WP:ELOFFICIAL, under the subsection "Minimize the number of links". The policy says two things: "If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website," and, even more clearly, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." This is the reason for deleting the links to the country-specific sites—since all of the different country sites can be found prominently on he main Nando's homepage, they all have to be deleted. Second, regarding the rate my Nando's links, these count as fan sites and self-published sources. In WP:ELNO, which lists types of external links not to include, point number 4 prohibits "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" The rateyournandos site falls exactly within these provisions--it's an unofficial site, run by fans of the restaurant, who are not themselves a recognized authority. In addition, since much of the content is provided by other users we could arguably also apply point number 12, which forbids "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

So, what we can see is that since those links directly violate policy, they should be removed by any editor who sees them. That other pages have similar links is no excuse to keep them here; that they may be "useful" is also no reason to keep them.

Now at first, you'll note that I didn't mark your/the IPs re-addition of the links as vandalism. However, when the edits were re-added several times after explaining why the links were not, I believe the re-addition came to fall under the WP:VANDALISM policy, which states in part that "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism, or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest, or text that promotes one's personal interests."). This is a judgement call, and other editors might have continued to just revert. However, I felt that I was having difficulty getting your attention to the policy violations, and I hoped that by tagging your edit as vandalism (which I still believe it technically qualifies as, since you had already been warned via the IP page and the article's talk page that the links violated policy) it would "catch your eye," and get you to interact with me and the policies I was trying to enforce. Because you have attempted to engage with me here, I will strike out the vandalism warning from your page and add an explanation saying that you were trying to add the links in good faith. However, if you continue to add the links, after having been shown why the links clearly violate policy, I will continue to escalate the warnings on your page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian, Thanks for your comprehensive response. Since I am new to the messaging and warning system on Wikipedia I was unaware of any warnings before last night. Therefore I apologise if you felt you were being ignored; this was not my intention and I contacted you as soon as I was aware. I no doubt should have read the guidelines more fully, and was somewhat misguided by other wiki-articles linking to fan pages and external sites considered 'useful'. I will of course refrain from re-adding the links and I appreciate your removal of the formal warning against my name. I am pleased to know this will not go against me should I wish to contribute to articles in the future (in a way which abides by the guidelines). Regards Jc sed8d (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Now that was a pleasant and instructive exchange to stumble across. :) Qwyrxian, I am new here, too, and taking notes. Thanks for the "welcome" message on my page...I'm guessing I will have questions, in the future. Hedonistbot4000 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome for the welcome (!). Feel free to ask; I'm still learning myself (WP is a big place, after wall), but I'll be happy to help when/where I can! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sea of Japan naming dispute

Hi! I know that you've been working on the matter and rewriting it on your user sub page. I'd like to join the talk but I'm too busy right now. Besides, there are too many threads there. I hope you would be patient and wait a while. I've been wondering why user:660gd4qo stopped talking since Aug. 28. I don't know what to do the talk without him. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem--it's going to take quite a bit more time anyway--once you get down to looking at the details, the article is quite bad. Many of those references shouldn't have been allowed to stand for a day, much less months or years. Information is duplicated all over the place; many sentences have questionable grammar, etc. So I'll keep slogging away.

As for 660gf4qo...I would argue it's because s/he doesn't care about collaborating, only making the changes s/he wants. This seemed obvious to me from his/her very first refusal to dialogue. One way of looking at it is that s/he doesn't have to dialogue right now, because all of the changes he made are currently preserved in WP:THEWRONGVERSION on display. Plus he views us as hopeless POV pushers, I think, in part because I made a mistake in an early comment. If the article were unprotected, at this point I would consider his refusal (and it is refusal, because she's been editing quite a large number of other articles) to engage in collaborative editing to mean we have no choice but to continue editing without him/her. I don't really mind at this moment, though, because I don't think piece-meal changes is necessarily the right approach. Fascinating that his insistence on making bold changes across the article have inspired me to do the same--except, of course, that I won't edit war to keep my changes in the article, and will try to get as much consensus as possible.

Finally, as for there being "too many threads" open, as far as I'm concerned, you can consider anything I opened before my latest big proposal to be moot. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake above--I didn't search properly; it looks like 660gd4qo hasn't done any editing at all since August 28. Probably busy with real life, I imagine. In any event, Wikipedia does not require that we wait for every possible user to comment on every possible change, although it does require that some people respond to some calls for change. I'm still not going to let his inability or unwillingness to dialogue prevent me from making changes to the article that clearly need to be made anyway. At this point, the revisions I'm proposing are going to go much beyond the changes he made and to the very core of the article. Again, no hurry to respond on your (or anyone else's part)--I won't be pushng to try to get this into the article until it's ready and there has been plenty of time for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: lists of TV station former employees messaging

Hello again Qwyrxian; I've been continuing to remove unreferenced lists of former employees of television stations which do not have pre-existing articles; although I have slowed the rate which I'm doing that sort of editing as compared to a couple of months ago; I intend to 'keep at it'. I have a question for you. Rather than having to 'reinvent the wheel', each and every time I'm attempting to explain my rationale for performing these edits on article and personal talk pages; I'm wondering if perhaps you have discovered a "formula" in terms of wording these explanations that appears to produce ease of understanding more often than not? I understand that obviously circumstances may vary from case to case here; but is it possible that between the two of us (or more) we can come up with a specific explanatory method that covers the policy bases and potentially eases tensions that may potentially arise; which obviously we're trying to avoid if possible. Personally, I always try to mention WP:NLIST , because the wording there is so obviously applicable to what editors are actually doing when they add (or re-add) this type of material and 'take responsibility' for it by doing so. In your experience; with these situations, have you hit on wording that appears to 'work' more often than not? Last night I 'cleaned up' the List of personalities on The Weather Channel list article in this regard and earlier tonight WGNO‎; which I just noticed has already been reverted and will have to be dealt with again. Thank you for your time and your continuing what many of us out here consider very helpful and constructive editing in regard to expecting verifiability in unreferenced BLP material in list form. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am a bit slower than before. I tend to do these when I have some, but not much time, and I don't really feel like thinking, like I would if I was actually writing content. I've probably only done a dozen or so since I started. In any event, on the talk page, I always copy and paste the following message, which I keep in a text file on my hard drive:

Significant trimming of Former Staff section

I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page or a reference to establish their notability and verify that they worked at they station. This is believed to be the current consensus at WP:WikiProject Television Stations. The rationales are as follows:

1. Most importantly, per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
2. Secondarily, per WP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I'm not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
3. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of info, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m not going to revert your removal of large amounts of information from the WCNC-TV list of former station personnel. I’m the creator of that section and was its most recent editor until your work in the last day or so. I’m also not going to argue the removal of specific individual items on the list. However, I’m going to share a number of concerns, some of which are about the policy regarding these lists in general and some about this particular page.

Has there been any new discussion about this at the Village Pump page since June 25? If not, this “consensus” establishing a standard for notability was created by approximately seven editors. The overwhelming majority of us who have worked on these pages had no way of knowing that the discussion was taking place, much less that “consensus” had been reached. Seven people aren’t supposed to decide that they’ve made up a new rule that applies to the work of potentially hundreds of other people. Therefore, I take issue with the assertion that there is a “consensus” of this nature.

If you’re going to remove large portions of someone’s work, common courtesy and desire for consensus would seem to involve voicing your concerns on the author’s talk page and on the article talk page ‘’before’’ you start weed-whacking. At least at WCNC-TV, you didn’t do so. You rushed in and unilaterally imposed your own judgment, including your judgment about the reliability of a number of linked sites with which you are probably not familiar. Many of the linked biographies which you describe as “borderline reliable corporate bio(s)” are news articles on the Websites of recognized television news organizations. Those are reliable sources by definition.

It should have been evident from the notations that that section was a work in progress. I had already substantially pruned down the list of names above the sourcing notation, removing those for whom I could find no source at all, and was in the process of attempting to find additional sources for those who were kept. There is absolutely no need to rush to delete large amounts of information rather than waiting for those who’ve worked on the page in the recent past to resume their work, or at least asking those editors beforehand if and when they plan to do so.

You close your posting on the talk page this statement: ‘’So, names can be re-added if reliable sources are found and they show the person is notable, but otherwise must remain off of the list.’’ That’s a unilateral statement, and you don’t control the content of the page any more than anyone else does; the word “must” implies that you think I need to ask permission. I don’t, and no one else does, either. Nor do you need permission to contribute to an article about a subject of your interest and knowledge.

This is a concern that I raised earlier when large amounts of information were removed (i.e., the last time someone made their first contribution to the article by running a weed whacker through this section). This isn’t directed at you specifically, it’s a general comment on the issue. Someone who is not familiar with the station or the community it serves is not in a position to judge the notability of its personalities. Many of these people, by virtue of their positions, are or were notable in those local communities. That’s not enough to warrant an individual Wikipedia article on them, but it certainly merits half a sentence of mention in the article on a station where the person might have worked for decades.

I apologize if these comments seem strident or needlessly long-winded. I’m just not interested in constantly (over and over) listen to someone who has considerably less knowledge of this material than I do, and has never before contributed to the article, dictate the terms for what’s included here and what “must” not be. I’ll be happy to discuss these concerns with you, either here, on my page, or on a discussion forum. Best, JTRH (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to conversation

I then customize anything I need to mention in particular; for instance, sometimes people on the list appear to have a reference, but it's actually to something like LinkedIn, which doesn't meet WP:RS--in that case I usually add a WP:RS explanation.

Looking at your comments, I believe that mentioning WP:NLIST, or maybe even going directly to WP:Source list may be helpful. Do you think it would help as a fourth point, or would it be clearer to replace my reference to WP:NOT with NLIST?

As for "working," I think the issue has more to do with the persistence of the other editors than with any particular wording. I haven't had anyone wholescale revert me yet, just usually adding in the one or two names they are certain are "important". In that case, I usually start off by reverting with a request that the person look to the talk page; if that doesn't work (I'm pretty sure that some of the people adding the info are not regular Wikipedians and are in good faith trying to add information that they think is "missing"), I go with a personalized message on the talk page (which, again, points the person to the article's talk page). If I had editing go beyond that, I'd either target page protection or consider reporting for edit-warring (although that itself can be tricky, since usually I can end up pushing up against 3RR myself).

One thing that really helps on my pages is that I notice that you're watching many of them. Did you just watchlist TV pages I made changes to (by checking my contributions)? Or did you check/notice them for other reasons? I don't necessarily want to have several thousand tv station pages on my watch list, since they change pretty often for good reasons (like current on-air staff), and that ends up hiding pages I care more about...but maybe if we were somehow tracking which pages have the corrections we might be able head off early problems. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Qwyrxian; sincerest apologies for my extended delay in replying to your thoughtful response; 'real world' commitments have substantially curtailed my activities here on Wikipedia, as my recent editing history amply demonstrates. Thank you for commenting in the current "Lists of names of non-notable people" discussion on WP:ANI; it appears that our interpretation of consensus and policy continues to 'have legs' in these matters. Over the next week or so; I'm hoping to make available to you a list of the station articles which I've edited in regard to these lists in order to give you an idea of where I've already 'been' and perhaps improve our efficiency of coverage. I'm of the opinion, that it's important when providing rationales for these edits to focus on the need for "verifiability" (as it is one of our cornerstone policies) thus I try to provide a contending editor with links highlighting that aspect. As I mentioned before, I consider WP:NLIST and WP:Source list to be the most straightforward example of that inclination and so I always try to include one or both of them in my communications regarding this issue. Please always feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any problems or concerns in this area. Thank you for your continued participation; I believe we've already contributed positively to attempting to clean up this ongoing problem and I intend to continue to work in that direction. Thanks again for your time and personal efforts. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)