User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Dravidian peoples 2

Hello Qwyrxian. You're one of the editors on this article and you're also an admin. Somebody has requested full protection of the article at WP:RFPP. Can you enlighten me as to what the dispute is about? Though I shouldn't favor your position (in case I make an admin action) I'm hoping you can at least tell me what is going on. I see that a checkuser (User:Elockid) has recently blocked one of the participants (User:MThekkumthala) as a sock. Thanks for any info you can provide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ed, I came to this through the discussion at WP:CCN (see note above) where I Id'd MT as Kalarimaster (been blocking him for over a couple of years now!). That discussion provides some background, perhaps sufficient until Q gets back (I just know about the socking part). —SpacemanSpiff 20:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an editor on the article. I responded to a prior full protection request on the article. I declined it in part because the editor who made the request was the last one to have edited the article, and the history was too much of a mess for me to determine a prior version to revert to, because I did not want to give the requester last move advantage. Then, a day or so later, another admin blocked the two worst editors for a week for edit warring. Yesterday, I saw that one of those editors, MThekkumthala, returned from the block only to make the same edit warring edit. So I reverted it, and blocked the editor for a month. Through the good work of Spacemanspiff and Elockid, it turned out that this edit warrior was just the sock of a long term sockmaster. Now, if other editors are still edit warring besides the sock, then full protection seems very reasonable. I know nothing about the topic, other than that it's about race and ethnicity and genetics which essentially guarantees its going to be unpleasant and controversial. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

User Rejedef

I see that User Rejedef is back[1]. By the way, Rejedef claims to be "she" not "he".--Toddy1 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message on her talk page...and I guess I have to add Eastern Europe and Western Europe back onto my watchlist. Let me know if there are any worrisome edits. The page moves today are acceptable per WP:BOLD; the problem would be if someone moves them back and then a move war starts. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If she'll listen to you, then please try to advise her appropriately. Her response to me is an open declaration that she will edit war any time she doesn't get her way--that to me means the next offense should lead to an indefinite block. The whole vanish thing: she emailed me and insisted that EU law requires that we have a procedure to completely delete her account. I told her we don't follow EU law. However, one or two emails later, I remembered, WP:VANISH, and told her about it, giving her explicit instructions about where to go and who to email. She told me that was too much bureacracy, and that I had to do it. I explained that it is impossible for me to do it, because administrators don't have the technical ability to rename people. Somehow, this was unacceptable to her. In the middle of that, I thought she told me to delete her user page, so I did; it turns out she only wanted it blanked, so I undeleted than blanked. The problem is that she wants something impossible--true deletion, which would actually be illegal for us, because we would lose the attribution history of her edits and thus violate CC-BY-SA. So, if you can talk some sense into her, or know someone uninvolved who can, please do so. She has told me to stay off of her talk page, which I will do. But if I catch any bad editing, I will find someone to block her. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Time to write a lead?

Do you have the time and inclination to sort out a lead for John Horsefield? Someone has suggested that it should be nominated at DYK but I am embarrassed about the lead section, and you know my lack of ability regarding them! - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a chance I can get to it in the next 2 hours; if not, then it will probably be 24 hours before I can touch it. I know you're under a 5 day deadline to make the submission, so if you don't see me get to it in the next few hours, you may want to check around for someone else. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not bothered about the DYK. I am simply embarrassed that I am so incapable of doing these things. To me, they seem like repetition and I have a big, big stumbling block about saying something twice. It is stupid of me, I know. - 23:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long. I didn't actually make all that many changes; just an extra sentence or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

Regarding List of scandals in India : Each time someone adds a new year in the article, the Table of Content gets longer. I think we should change the alignment of the TOC to horizontal. I tried to do so, tried some templates, edited many but didn't succeed. I wonder if you could help. --Aryan wiki (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryan wiki (talk • contribs)

There is a way to fix it, but I'll have to find it later today. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

After looking at it, I don't think horizontal would fix the problem (it would be too long to fit horizontally). Instead, I reorganized it with the decades as level 2 sections and the individual years as level 3 sections, then I forced the Table of Contents to display only the decades. What do you think about that solution? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Qwyrxian for fixing it--Aryan wiki (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was looking at that as a possible solution. This is one of those situations where a collapsible TOC would be handy but, of course, it would require that the user has javascript turned on or java installed etc. I can see the article having to be split into 20C/21C and, later, perhaps into decades if this thing keeps growing. Recently, there was a report suggesting that over 60% of the Lok Sabha have or have had charges laid against them, which is pretty horrific! - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

E8 stuff

I started tackling the lede. I had already a revert. Your guide would be help before it gets annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.128.58 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be a few days before i get the chance to look in detail, sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, everybody is a volunteer here. I will keep editing the chronology mess. Just to report something, there was a discussion because Scientryst is claiming that if the D-G critical paper is in the lede, then also all the papers that Lisi wrote have to be in the lede. I disagree, because the fact that Lisi wrote 1, 2, or 1000 papers is not important from the point of view of the theory, especially given that those papers added very little details to the implant of the theory. While a peer reviewed article that has a proof that the theory cannot work is a completely separate issue. It's not a matter of balancing weights. The information in the D-G paper is crucial. Anyhow, happy holidays if your culture is one that is in holiday time! 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'll start looking at Lisi's personal page, which incredibly has a longer page than physicists who won the Nobel prize and it has a section listing ALL the interviews he has given to magazines. If we did that with everybody WP would become a search engine for interviews. It seems that also that page is extremely unbalanced, with a few fans trying to increase its natural weight. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I requested the personal page about Lisi to be temporarily semi or full protected and reverted to the edits where it's clear that Lisi's theory currently doesn't work. Editor SherryNugil there doesn't want me to include information about the status of Lisi's theory. Xe started an edit war. I stopped and reported. SherryNugil is stating that it's not important to say in Lisi's page the critique or the critical status of his theory, leaving all the attempted accomplishments, but not the failures. A reader just reading Lisi's page would barely see that his theory has problems and that it's not considered correct by the physics community. 98.244.54.152 (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm too involved on the other article to be able to protect the page myself. I'll let another admin decide. I'm probably not going to watchlist that page, if only because I don't want to add another big headache to my work right now. Let me know if you need help initiating dispute resolution though, as it can be difficult to know what steps to proceed with. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense. It would be helpful to know the steps. Especially how to deal with the possible sock puppetry of SherryNugil and Scientryst. And whether or not I should start two different disputes or just one. They will have to be related somehow. It is also, inconceivable that an editor doesn't allow the status of the theory to be included in somebody's page, given the theory the reason why that somebody is included in the encyclopedia. Some guidance would be helpful, especially about the amount of material to present. SherryNugil and Scientryst's styles of writing and editing, nearly identical, can be very arrogant and frustating, so it would be good to know what the best way to present things to admins is. Thanks 98.244.54.152 (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might want to read this. From Garrett Lisi's Google+ public profile and his Twitter account: "Merry xmas, someone's furiously messing with long-standing wikipedia pages on me and E8 Theory. I must have angered a wiki elf."

Again in a comment on g+ Lisi states: "The weirdest thing to me about the wikipedia drama has been how it has connected back and forth to outside forces. Jacques Distler complained early on about the E8 Theory wiki page on his blog, and a wiki editor (the same one responsible for recent edits?) commented there with a call to action. I guess they didn't have good sources backing up Distler's criticism of the theory though, so now appears Michael Duff's hit piece on me and E8 Theory in an editorial paper that is ostensibly a defense of string theory. You know, until now, I've tried to be nice to string theorists, attempting to largely steer clear of the string controversy, but the political maneuvering of this particular string contingent is reprehensible."

By the way, you included the Duff part. And it's pretty delusional to think that there is some sort of conspiracy instead of just concerned editors (see also new comment on Lisi's personal page discussion from a person that belongs to the wiki physics project).

Scientryst, SherryNugil and Lisi say things in a very similar fashion, and all the words they all choose are also very similar. BTW, this to me looks like a lot more a call to action than the one on Distler blog, where it was explicitly asked to be NPOV and not offensive. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also good material from Lisi's page, making even comments on who (you) wanted to cut the mathematical part. Were you part of the Distler team?. This material is really giving even a stronger idea that it's Lisi the one that is trying to edit his own page and trying to ridiculously out other people and editors with some social network bullying. And also, it's clear that Lisi is actively worried about how his theory look on Wikipedia. Lisi just said: "you will of course form your own opinion, but anonymous attacks of people which whom he disagrees is very much Distler's style, as is back-room dealing, deception, and extortion. There was such an incident on Peter Woit's blog, where he outed him. I suppose I shouldn't let it bother me, but the main material that's been cut from the wikipedia page on the theory (a week or so ago I think) was the mathematical description and the graphical description. Interested people can read my papers for that, but that description seemed like an OK mathematical summary. The IP's (mainly one person as far as I can tell) vigorously editing the theory page, since April or so, I don't think is Jens Koeplinger. I think it was the same physicist or physics student from UC Davis who posted the last comment to Distler's blog as "Dan" back in July: [link removed]"

I believe this has to be enough to report the fact that it's highly possible that there is a lot of WP:COI in editing Lisi's pages. How should I proceed? 24.7.128.58 (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If these are publicly available, could you give me links to these posts? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are https://plus.google.com/108405429084641270297/posts at this moment it's the first post and its comments. Thanks 24.7.128.58 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I agree with everything you said about the page, except that I asked you already about where to go for the sock puppetry and I think it's normal to discuss such things in discussion pages before going ahead and do formal accusations. It's been months that I'm asking help with all the policies and stuff, and in a lot of cases at the end I succeeded at making changes as much as NPOV I could. But in a lot of other cases these pro-Lisi editors aren't willing to accept anything until an admin shows up. It's hard to deal with editors when they just revert and barely talk about the changes. So, officially, I'm asking for help. It will save a lot of time for everybody. And thanks. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to report sockpuppetry, the correct thing to do is to open up a sockpuppetry investigation on the person whom you believe is the main account (I imagine that's Scientryst, since I believe xe predates SHerryNugil, but I'm not exactly sure). Now, one problem is that I think that you can't actually start an SPI, because I think that starting an SPI requires starting a new page, which you can't do as an IP editor. Here's what I'll do: I have created a sandbox page at User:Qwyrxian/SPI draft where you can leave evidence. This evidence should primarily be in the form of diffs (check the link if you need to know how to get those). You need to provide specific edits that the editors have made (either to the talk page or to articles) that show imply that they are the same person. After you do that, I'll review what you wrote. If I think the evidence is strong enough, I'll start the SPI page for you. For the time being, I recommend leaving out any claims about the real world identity of the person--doing so is borderline WP:OUTING, which is not allowed, and, ultimately, isn't particularly relevant (and, even if it were, is better handled through a different type of investigation). Keep in mind that doing this may not necessarily produce the result you want, because it is entirely possible that Scientryst and SherryNugil are actually different people, both of whom just happen to support Lisi/E8. But if the evidence is clear that they are the same person or are acting like the same person, action can be taken (another admin(s) will make that decision). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will start with that. Before I start putting energy in this and find out only eventually that it was the wrong platform, I have just a specific question: is it technically considered sockpuppetry if Scientryst edits just the E8 page and SherryNugil just the Lisi personal page? I would assume so, because it would mean that their are hiding, in case it's proven, to be the same person editing both pages, allegedly hoping that their actions won't be considered combined and then showing that it's only one user defending in both cases their point of view, but I'm not sure this is suckpuppetry as opposed to conflict of interests.

Separately, about the page contents, is the procedure similar for COIN and DRN, given that some of the changes in Lisi's personal page can't be made by normal edits (at least for me)? If I understand correctly for DRN I just have to talk about the content, and not the editors, maybe showing why some edits are POV in my interpretation. While in COIN I'm not sure whether or not the accusation would need to be done together with SPI. Anyhow I can provide many many diffs of their edits to show how these authors are similar in actions and definitely with a COI. Again, thanks a lot for your help. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well...that would possibly be considered legitimate sockpuppetry. It's okay to have more than one account, though you're usually supposed to declare it, as long as you're not vote-stacking, or otherwise disrupting discussions by trying to appear to be two people. However, if they were both making essentially the same arguments on both pages, then I could see the logic of it being bad, because they're basically forcing you to respond to the same thing in two different places. Maybe pull up a couple of diffs that seem the most problematic, and I'll review them, before you do too much work.

For COIN, you would need to show that one/both of the editors in question has a real-world interest in these particular pages. For me, COIN is one of the least useful options, because according to our rules, someone who just supported Lisi (like some of the people responding on the Google+ page you linked to) does not have a conflict of interest (from our perspective), but Lisi, his relatives, and anyone directly connected to him in a financial way does. It is highly unlikely that you'll be able to distinguish between those two groups of people. A far more productive approach is from an NPOV angle (since no one can violate NPOV, even if they don't have an "official" COI), or a general dispute resolution attitude, bringing us to...

For DRN, you basically just need to say, "Here's a problem. We've tried to work this out, and we're not getting anywhere. Could you give us some informal advice about how to move forward"? For the moment, I recommend holding off on DRN, because we already have a similar question up on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (the one I opened yesterday). Opening a second Dispute resolution process about the page in general could be considered forum-shopping, and that's bad. It's better to wait and see if FTN can help the situation first, and, if it proves to be beyond their ability/remit, use DRN as the next step.

Part of what I'm saying here, btw, is that there's no particular need to rush to get a solution. Are the pages bad? Sure, in some ways, but they're not terrible--they do include both positive and negative comments about Lisi and the theory, though obviously the correct balance is in question. What I think needs to happen is that the voices who just keep harping on and on about the Lisi/Smolin machine stop or are forced to stop (that's the other IP editor, right?) and that there are no more calls for deletion (because that's obviously entirely out of the question), then we can get back to more reasonable discussions. Scientryst is very stubborn, but is at least capable of holding a rational discussion, and has been known to compromise before (I note, for instance, that he hasn't tried to reinsert all of the mathematical details in the E8 article). But all of the calls to delete the page actually give fuel to him to ignore any real, constructive suggestions, since he can (legitimately) paint all of the complaints as extreme. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was really helpful. I will follow your advice. Yes, it's true that the pages aren't terrible, but until yesterday, when an admin finally put a sentence about the acceptance of Lisi's theory in Lisi's personal page, it wasn't really clear that the community doesn't think his theory is going to go anywhere. This is bad, especially now that Lisi started collaborating with a TV show and there is a lot of people interested (maybe) in his personal page. Even though wikipedia is by no means a place to do propaganda, it would be sad if users misunderstand the validity of Lisi's proposal, i.e., a teen ager could think that professors are paid too much and are generally not worth money investing if a surfer solved a problem that they have tried to solve for 80 years. This could lead people to believe, for example, that investing money in public universities and pay a salary to those professors is wrong. Now, of course this is an extreme, although not completely unlikely, point of view. We, as editor, must not take any action about it, of course. And it's not that the universities will close because of Lisi's page either. But the actions that we need to take of are, at least, that we are honest on how the theory is perceived and incomplete. Then people can get their own conclusions.

About the points you raised, briefly. Yes, that is the other IP, and often I tried to stop the deletion direction. Same thing about the Lisi/Smolin enterprise, I often tried to explain that it doesn't matter if Scientryst is Lisi as long as he would be NPOV. The problem is the POV. So, I agree, that needs to stop. About Scientryst, I would like to point out that it's true that he reasons, but if you study his edits, he never gives up unless there is somebody, like you or another admin, that uses immediately some wikipedia policy to finally solve the discussion. He never or very very rarely accepts directly others' modifications. If you have a couple of minutes, you can see that SherryNugil, in Lisi's page, does the same. And xe forced me to create a mess to get someone's attention (because I'm not a policy expert, although I'm trying to learn). The modification you made, about the list of interviews, was immediately opposed by SherryNugil. And other modifications about his theory's reception by the academic word were reverted 6 times with a bogus 3RR exception rule application (now I understand that even though I stopped editing and tried other ways, I was also not allowed to revert things, even though I was explaining them in the discussion page and trying to get to a consensus.

Anyhow, thanks a lot for your help and I'll start writing in your sandbox. Thanks! 24.7.128.58 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edits of 71.106.167.55, and the fact that you are supporting his point of view with your edits and actions, you should know that he is a well known crackpot and internet menace and has been editing these pages from many different IP's, with negative POV, hundreds of times, at least back to 2008. I have done what I can to deal with his edits and maintain NPOV, but you two gentlemen are NOT helping. You should reconsider your actions here.-Scientryst (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't be sympathetic with what you are saying. I don't care who 71 is as long as xe is not vandalizing the page itself. Both myself and Qwyrxian have defended the existence of the page and 71 barely touches the pages. Yes, 71 adds a lot of noise in the discussion pages but what that's not very important when the page doesn't change that much. Also, you can see that I have a different approach and Qwyrxian has an approach also different from mine. I'm sorry but the fact that you don't like some edits doesn't mean that they aren't NPOV or that they necessarily are offensive to Lisi. The world, and the scientific world too, have "plenty" of wrong theories, incomplete theories, and so on. And those authors are perfectly respectful scientists. It is not offensive to say that Lisi doesn't have a theory of everything currently working. It would be pretty amazing if he did. Nobody has a full theory of everything, how can you think that stating clear that his theory currently doesn't work is offensive? The fact that the theory doesn't work is not a synonym of being a crackpot physicist. We defended many times Lisi as a scientist and the existence of the page. This doesn't mean that the results can be misrepresented. Nor does it mean that Lisi won't eventually find something valuable and useful for particle physics having testable predictions. But about the page, I think you should take some time off from editing. If you want, signal to others some clear POV or vandalism. But I came to this point because of your excessive refusal to include other editors' edits when they were slightly negative. And you perfectly know that what I write is true. You think it's POV just because it includes some critiques, but the problem is that you don't want to include any the critiques, and instead try to make me look POV. You've gotta understand that your page is longer than pages for physicists who won the Nobel Prize. It's not a disaster if we take some material off for WP:UNDUE. And it's not a disaster if we write about the problems of the theory. Even string theory has this following sentence as the third sentence in the lede, first paragraph "The theory has yet to make novel experimental predictions at accessible energy scales, leading some scientists to claim that it cannot be considered a part of science." So, do you really think that we should have more regard for your E8 page than string theory, which at least has years and years of results and can reproduce lots of things? I don't like string theory that much, btw. The problem is that Lisi believes that his theory belongs to him, instead of the scientific community. It's ok if the theory is wrong in its current version. About the personal page, there is plenty of famous people who have sections with critiques, look at, for example the page for actors. I don't understand in what Lisi would be different. Certainly I'm not trying to be offensive, and neither is Qwyrxian. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to care who 71 is, but Qwyrxian should, because they are a banned user. And you are absolutely incorrect when you say 71 "barely touches the pages," he has edited the Exceptionally Simple Theory page hundreds of times, using different IP. Look at the history, starting with this 71 and connecting the dots of different IP posting similar POV language up to the present one. I'm sick of trying to protect it. And you're also incorrect that it's my page. Personally, I think Lisi's model is incomplete, and quite possibly wrong as a theory of nature, but there's a lot there that's right, and that seems promising, which is more than you can say for most theories. But, mine is a minority view. I have some respect for you because you understand a small amount of group theory, and can see that Lisi got some of that right, so you should be able to make sure that fact is clearly expressed in your article, which right now has no mathematics and says Distler and Garibaldi proved Lisi wrong. What you are doing is deeply damaging to those who might be working on this incomplete theory, and you should reconsider your actions. At least 71 has the excuse of incompetence.-Scientryst (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Separately, I would mention that in the past something slightly similar already happened, see Bogdanov_Affair. In that case briefly it seems like the two authors tried to edit their pages on Wiki because they became TV people and they didn't want readers to know about their papers being far from meaningful. It was a complicated matter that John Baez and other people wrote on their blogs. Because of all the blog off-wiki entries their page includes also a mention of the actions taken in wiki sockpuppeting and banning. This is the reason why I posted the details from Lisi's google plus on the discussion page, because I thought it was important information in case things were brought up in some action request. I apologize if it was a wrong approach. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For comparison with the Bogdanov Affair, you should read what John Baez had to say about Lisi.-Scientryst (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You should know, because I think I mentioned it before, that I know perfectly what John Baez wrote about Lisi. The comparison with the Bogdanov Affair holds for the attempts of users to modify wiki pages hiding facts and using sock puppetry and Lisi's specific mention on his g+ account of the wiki edits from other authors and ridiculous attempts to bully and to out editors. The comparison is not a judgement on whether or not they were crackpots and Lisi is not or vice versa. By the way, I don't even think that the Bogdanov's were crackpots, I just think they were sloppy scientists that were pretty confused about the foundations of what they were doing. Sometimes Lisi is sloppy too, but he's too stubborn to see it or admit it. But this has nothing to do with anything we are discussing here. 24.7.128.58 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Scientryst, what is the name of the banned user, and what is your evidence that it's the same person? Because if there's evidence, then I'll be more than happy to set up the necessary processes in order to get the person blocked, re-blocked, etc.

Regarding us being "unhelpful"--well, we can do to things at once. On the one hand, we have a disruptive editor (71) who wants the article deleted and Lisi defamed. On the other hand, we have an article (Lisi's definitely, E8 a little less so) that is overlong, and doesn't adequately contextualize exactly what status this theory has in the field. More on this later, but it's 1:00 am here and time to sleep. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Scientryst, you have a completely biased perception of the problems about the page. Most theories don't even appear in wikipedia, even models that actually work. Why do you think that this E8 stuff is so important to be described in a very detailed way in WP when lots of famous theories are barely mentioned? This being said, I am no one to say whether or not Lisi's E8 stuff will go anywhere, and I don't want to say that it's not promising at all. All I'm saying is that there are gaps pretty much universally recognized in the mathematics of it (E8 representations, chirality, triality, antigeneration, masses, mixing), in the coherence of it (BRST, Coleman-Mandula, anomalies, coupling constant runnings) and in its predictions (how is it useful so far? if not for indicating some areas that people might want to look at?). Stating this clearly is by no means something that should damage anybody. At the contrary, researchers working on it could tackle these points and write very nice papers if they find a good solution. What does a wikipedia page have anything to do with researchers? If their work is good the papers will be published well. So, if anything, we need less interviews and more papers.

Here, instead, the problem is not researchers, but the casual readers that would see a misrepresentation of the state of things. Again, I'm not trying to say that Lisi is a crackpot, I'm trying to objectively report what the theory is. What aspects do you think, of this E8 stuff, are right but not well represented in the page? What aspects do you think are better than in most theories (and which theories)? Why do you think that showing some mathematics is really relevant? The mathematics shown had an unusual notation, confusing at the least and maybe not even right (what is this formal addition? does it work? does it predict the right cross sections? can it be used in other theories? how about the unconventional BRST? how does it enter?). Anyhow, I was the one reintroducing the decomposition, because I thought that part was clear enough and most physics people would understand that. The rest of the math was just a way to show off, given that not even physics people would understand it without studying the new notation. Let's just have a much shorter page, with less of everything.

(about 71, lately xe wasn't really editing, that's what I meant. And I'm sure admins will follow through if 71 was banned in the past, or if this new physicsrocks user is a sockpuppet or just POV)

Do you realize that this E8 stuff has had a page as long as QCD? And that Lisi's page was longer than Murray Gell-Mann's? We are talking about fundamental discoveries of the last 50 years, and Gell-Mann even won the Nobel Prize for QCD. Do you realize that this E8 stuff has had a page longer than the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa_matrix and Lisi's page is longer than the three physicists, two of which won the Nobel Prize for it mentioned? And this is just to mention group theory related results. And even if now Lisi is a TV person, SherryNugil's version of Lisi's page was as long as Larry King's. Do you see the problem here? 24.7.128.58 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the banned user, Elliot McGucken has made hundreds, if not thousands, of negative POV edits to Lisi related pages. Here is a partial collection of contributions, in roughly reverse chronological order: Physicrocks, 71.106.167.55, 71.105.103.149, 64.134.223.25, 64.134.238.60, 71.106.172.131, 71.106.173.238, 71.106.194.198, 67.102.135.70, 98.96.131.166, 71.232.15.137, 98.97.102.198, 137.159.189.7, 137.159.148.66, 76.16.160.165, 71.167.229.61, 137.159.149.199, 137.159.148.112.

There is another banned user (look at that link to get a quick idea of the magnitude of the problem), amorrow, who has also made hundreds of negative POV edits. Here is a partial collection: Afteread, Totalbr, Verbapple, Wouldbn, Makevocab, Standardfact, Miles1228.

With both of these users, it would be very helpful if you block them. However, it is their MO to come back in a few days, weeks or months with different identities and edit again. It is impossible to stop them with current policies, since it is too easy to change IP, and they are not always easily identifiable. These banned, abusive editors have been seriously effecting the POV of these articles for years. Almost every time any editor injects negative POV, one of these banned editors backs them up. I've been doing what I can to keep the Exceptionally Simple Theory article accurate and NPOV, but it is a lot of work and I'm sick of it. And, since you and 58 are working against me and enforcing your own negative POV, partially justified by persistent negative contributions from banned users, I am now incapable of stopping them.-Scientryst (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

71, you are raising many interesting technical and other questions, some rhetorical. Should this be discussed here, which seems somewhat rude to Qwyrxian, or elsewhere?-Scientryst (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're debating the article contents, do it there. If you're discussing sockpuppetry or other inappropriate behavior, do it here. Or at ANI (regarding the anti-Lisi sock), where I've just opened a thread, at WP:ANI#Banned user?. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what I suspected. If 71 cuts and pastes his questions/argument into the article talk page, I will address them there.-Scientryst (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I have written something in the sandbox. Let me know what you think. (moved in sandbox) 24.7.128.58 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies, but it is very likely that I will not be able to review it for about a week. I have only a little bit of WP time today, which I need to use covering my watchlist and other urgent issues...then I'll being losing internet access for 3-5 days. This is something that deserves serious consideration, not a rapid evaluation now. In a certain sense, that's alright, because if the problems been going on as long as you've said, then a few more weeks won't really hurt anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I agree, a few more weeks won't be a problem. If your losing internet is for vacation reasons then have fun and happy new years! 24.7.128.58 (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please see the last comment on John Vandenberg's talk page talk page regarding McGucken. The continuing and persistent harassment has been annoying. Can anything be done about it? And what about his many previous non-talk edits, should they be reverted?-Scientryst (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend reverting any problems that you see in articles, without specifically targeting those made by this banned editor. Is there anything that can be done? As far as I understand, stuff is being done, by ArbCom and the Foundation, but that it's complicated and being partially done off-wiki. I don't know much about this particular banned editor, nor, in fact, do I want to. What I do want to do is to stop the eternal bickering at the Lisi and E8 pages. I want people to stop calling for their deletion, and I want people to stop acting like Lisi's ideas have any clout in mainstream physics. I want the articles to adequately cover the real status Lisi and the theory holds/held, not the status that either partisan side hold. This means that I hold you partially responsible for the problems in these articles. However, there is one major difference between you and the "other side", in that "their" edits are often not only wrong, but also WP:BLP violating. Nonetheless, some day, neutrality needs to be achieved...we're getting near the point where we need outside help, but I'm personally not interested in that headache, yet (though that might change any day).

If you do see a new editor whom you think matches the profile of those other blocked socks, I know that John Vandenburg would be happy for you to email him immediately, even if it turns out to be a false alarm. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK.-Scientryst (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the ANI page protected? Not sure What happened... ~GT~ (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes ANI has to be protected for a few hours if there is a coordinated set of attacks, or one extremely determined disruptive sockmaster. It's unfortunate, but sometimes there is nothing else that can be done. It's rarely done for more than an hour or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I lost track of what the situation is with the notifications (suck puppetry and POV). It seemed for a bit that the situation was getting better, but we are back to Scyentrist reverting many times a day (on silly words in Lisi's personal page). Reporting on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Scientryst_reported_by_User:GroupT_.28Result:_.29 ~GT~ (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit

You obviously don't understand praise when you see it. Your judgmental blocking of something important to people thousands of miles from where you live is an obvious sign of your ignorance. It is a sad day for wikipedia when somebody like you becomes involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sshilohh (talk • contribs) 06:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

qwyzxianは信じられない。私はMATTY2SHOESが大好き。一週間サンタクルズに泊まって、MATTY2SHOESと会った。天才と思う。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunbarrules (talk • contribs) 06:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, um, I won't take any actions, but an any admins stalking my page are welcome to look at the deleted article (Matty 2 shoes) and decide if the page in question plus the comments here might warrant some sort of block. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've warned them about vandalism also. One step out of line... Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Horsefield

Thanks for the lead - that was a pleasant surprise, and a job well done. I agree with your note on the talk page but have been hanging on for an article via WP:RX because the snippet suggests that, as you do, he actually did have some involvement in the movement to exclude women. It is all a bit vague without the journal article, and a bit non sequitor-ish in our article because of it. I might transfer it to the talk page for now, as an aide memoire. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has now turned up. I'll have a read and adjust accordingly. - Sitush (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to improve image quality. 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) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

PEGCC

Hi there, Qwryxian. I've moved on to a new request on the Paid Editor Help page at WP:CO-OP, and would welcome your input if you're so inclined. I intend to be respectful of your time, and the topic this time is a little more complicated—a trade association / lobby group called the Private Equity Growth Capital Council—so I'll understand if you can't get to it immediately. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies; it's unlikely I will have time to get to this due to some personal issues keeping my WP time way down. I will comment if I have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ProudPakhtun-Wrora

Just gave him a 3RR warning which was after I found him changing some sourced numbers at Pashtun people - which I haven't yet warned him about. Do we have a new or an old problem here? Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Old. I've had issues with their contributions at a few places - eg: at List of Jats and Amir Khan (boxer) - and at one point wondered whether they might also be a sock, but gave up trying to find the master. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The name alone, I think, says it all. I'm bad at identifying socks but it doesn't really matter--someone who tells us that we can't edit articles about Pashtuns because we're not Pashtuns just doesn't get it (there should be an example somewhere in my talk page history). I think it's easier just to treat xyr like a new user, revert each of the bad edits as they come in, and block per policy when necessary (say, for repeated NPOV or edit warring). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for your input at the VP regarding the binding RFC idea. The discussion in the end turned pretty bad, which is largely my fault because the proposal wasn't clearly defined. I'm not that great at writing proposals (well, I thought I was, but clearly I am not). I was wondering if you could help me re-write the proposal into a workable one. I want to make it clear that it'd be a last resort, in between mediation and arbitration, and would be of a different structure to normal RFCs, but I am, well, stuck? Could you give me a hand? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 03:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will if I have time. Apologies, though, because I'm going to be on WP very much less for the foreseeable future. If I have a chance, I will take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Promot on user talk page

Is the organisation content at User_talk:Kharagvanshi kharwar kshatriya a breach of WP:UP#PROMO ? It looks to me as if they may have created an article that was CSD'd and repeated the content on their own talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

removed. I'll wait and see what happens next before going further. I'm going to be on WP very very much less than before for the foreseeable future, so please be sure to let me know here if the problem persists (I probably won't be able to keep up with my watchlist). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Sitush

Hello Q, I am requesting your help with dealing with Sitush (talk · contribs).This user, whom you are familiar with, has been, as it appears, owning Nair, Ezhava, Ajmer Singh, and some other articles, and edit warring at Yadav. Although I haven't edited these articles very much (as I am trying to stay out of a conflict/COI), I've seen how the past few months this user has caused some mass frustration, and has somehow avoided being warned. For instance, Yadav, where he's warring, he has been the one to warn his "opponents," and has never been warned for any of this, although I think he is usually correct. As you can see here, I have requested him to stop, but he hasn't replied yet. Many of his other actions appear equally weird, and barely violate WP policies, but, as I've just mentioned, he's been under the radar. I am considering filing a WP:AN case, but first, I need admin assistance.24.107.242.174 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Something similar has been posted at User talk:GorillaWarfare. - Sitush (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I chimed in at GW's talk, and I see the same matter popping up elsewhere. Seems like forum shopping to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a WP:AN case here, in case you are interested.24.107.242.174 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

While checking the articles that the IP mentions, I found that one of the articles in question, Green Leaves, has been the target of a complicated cut-and-paste move that's beyond my ability to understand completely. If you have the time, could you please look at the "Complicated history merge" section of WP:AN and participate if you're able? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, are you forumshopping your edit history issues as well? How unbecoming! Drmies (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, all; I've been off of WP for a while. 24..., I've read your complaint, and find it remarkably lacking in diffs or other specifics. Simply listing the top 7 or 8 articles that Sitush has edited and claiming "edit warring", "admin abuse" (don't know how that works since Sitush isn't an admin), etc., doesn't seem particularly insightful. Does Sitush revert people breaking policy? Yes. Do other editors criticize Sitush for doing so? Yes. Is edit warring acceptable? No, but, then again, I don't recall seeing instances of Sitush edit warring. If you have, bring up the specifics in the thread (though it should probably be moved to WP:ANI, not WP:AN. I don't think I'm going to comment there as I don't see much point in responding to such vague accusations. While I don't have much time for WP at the moment, if you have something specific you need from me, please ask again. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

James Tod FAC

As you are someone who contributed to the article, I thought that you should know that it is now at Wikipedia:Fac#James_Tod. Scary. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning of howling protests to come

I have just done this.- Sitush (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it; of course, feel free to notify me if i don't notice the action. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about deleted pages

Hello, I have a question regarding a that was deleted. First, I hope I'm doing this correctly: As I understand it, the first step is to contact the administrator to discuss the pages. The page is "Brand Velocity". I have been asked to address the issues brought up by the various editors and make changes accordingly. First, in the spirit of full disclosure, I suspect I would be considered a single purpose author; however, I am not employed by the company. Since I don't have that connection, I feel I was able to objectively review the page and address the editors' input, so I hope that will help with concerns about conflict of interest. That having been said, I would like to know how best to proceed with our discussion. I would provide you with a summary of how I addressed the issues, but considering I did major surgery to the page--including rewriting most of the copy and reassigning or deleting references--I wonder if it might be better to have you review the pages first? If you'll let me know which is best (or if there is another option you prefer), that would be great. If you want to review the pages, can you tell me how to show them to you? I've read the documentation but am not sure how to provide a page for viewing without actually re-posting it. I'm looking forward to our discussion. Thank you... Bgarofallou (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming here was definitely the right first step. Administrators can still see (most) deleted pages, so I was able to look at the old version of Brand Velocity. As to what we can do from that point, it depends on why the page was deleted. In this case, the page was deleted as the result of a formal Articles for deletion discussion; you can see that discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand Velocity. As you'll note, 3 different community members all argued that the article should be deleted, and no one spoke in favor. As the administrator closing the discussion, I looked at the page (mainly to make sure it hadn't significantly changed since the comments were made), then assessed the consensus. In this case, the consensus was clearly to delete. I also happen to agree with that consensus, because, at the time, the company's notability had not been established (info about how we usually establish notability for companies can be found at WP:CORP).

Having said all of that, deletion doesn't have to be forever. In this case, a new version of the page could be created if it clearly solved the problems mentioned in the AfD discussion. While you can read all of the concerns there, the basic problem is that the article contained no independent, reliable sources which spoke in detail about the company. Finding no less than 2 such sources (ideally, more) would be the bare minimum which needs to be done to recreate the page. Note that papers written by people who work for the company, no matter where they are published, do not count as independent.

If you think you have such sources, please give me some info about them here. Then I can advise whether the page can be recreated.

P.S.: Just for completeness, you can technically take the discussion to Deletion Review, but that place can only make changes if I (the admin) improperly closed the original discussion; since the discussion was unanimous and grounded in policy, DRV won't overrule the close. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the direction and feedback. So my next step will be to make sure there are enough references that would help the company qualify as notable and forward them to you for review. Thanks again for your help... Bgarofallou (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Whenever you get something, feel free to let me know and I'd be glad to advise. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Histmerge of Cracker Barrel Draft with Article

Well, the peer review for Cracker Barrel Old Country Store is over. Would you be able to histmerge the draft version with the main article? Then WWB and I can get started on a GA candidacy. Silverseren^C 05:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, despite what I said last time, this time I can't do a history merge. The problem is that the two "articles" now have overlapping histories. That is, after you started your/WWB Too's version, other subsequent changes were made to the live article. So, per WP:HISTMERGE, now I'm not supposed to do such a merge (assuming I understand the instructions clearly). Instead, the instructions say we should just use a normal "merge" approach. The first thing that needs to be done is that any of the relevant edits that have been made to the main article be copied over into the draft version (I note, for instance, that someone changed the number of stores). Then just do a copy and paste merge (erasing the entire old version). Then we'll have to leave some tags lying around on the article talk page and the draft talk page. If you let me know when the draft is fully up-to-date, then I'll do the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved over the store number info. I think that's the only thing I missed. I've been keeping up with changes in the main article overall. So, I think we're good. Silverseren^C 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

All done! Sorry I didn't have time to help with the actual editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, merge done. And I fixed the diff links in the attribution templates on both talk pages to point to the merge edit I made. Silverseren^C 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been a recent, short-lived fracas at WP:AN regarding history merges relating to Green Leaves. A bit of a mess, that was. Although I rather think that I cannot see it all (not being an admin etc), the solution pretty much matched my expectations, ie: sometimes it is not possible completely to merge histories. In that instance, the sorter-out said that they had to "lose" two edits. I had previously suggested that WP:IAR might apply but am still curious. Can IAR ever apply when licensing issues are involved? I am pretty sure that the answer is not 42. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

While i'm not Qwyrxian, I would just like to say that I think the answer is no. Attribution is related to copyright and IAR can never be applied to copyright rules, because IAR cannot be used to do something illegal. Silverseren^C 00:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi SilverS, yes, that is the quandary. The issue appears here, in one of my far too frequent appearances in front of The Mop Wielders. I agree entirely with the theory that you express but, gosh, it can get messy sometimes. I am fairly sure that I am not sufficiently privileged to see all that went on, and I have no problem with that, but IAR in this instance is a common sense solution. Over here in the UK there is a legal test of "reasonableness". I am no lawyer but suspect from my limited (300-400, mostly contract law) appearances in court that this test might work in that instance. In any event, it appears that dumping a couple of edits was the solution. It must be an absolute nightmare for you cleaners. - Sitush (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also assume that copyright beats IAR...but I wonder if it's more complicated, since with WP pages we're dealing with Creative Commons, which, if I understand correctly, isn't actually a part of US copyright law. But I would personally always opt for the process that maintains a full attribution history, and, if 2 processes will do that, the one that's more likely to continue to do so in the future (i.e., a history merge for non-overlapping histories, and some combination of copying and pasting with suitable tags when it is overlapping). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Død Beverte's artcle

Hello Qwyrxian. As you may know an AfD discussion for Død Beverte is currently underway. This AfD was already closed, reopened, and the total runtime for this AfD is up to 20 days. I'm not really sure which direction this AfD will go at this point. I did notice that an article about a band I wrote about was edited to mention the founding member, and his name redirects to that band. Would it be possible to do the same with Død Beverte? Have his page redirect to a section on Dethcentrik's article about him? Then later when more sources are found would he be able to be moved to his own page again, or would that type of a redirect be permanent? If the AfD results in a keep I would preferably leave the article as is, but I still wanted to ask this question. Any help is greatly appreciated! BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a second request to the relisting admin to close the AfD. If the article is deleted, there's nothing wrong with recreating the article as a redirect only to Dethcentrik. It would not be appropriate to have more than a line or two about Beverte's independent work, as that's not directly related to Dethcentrik; however, one line that says, "Since 20XX, Beverte has been releasing solo albums in addition to his work on Dethcentrik." But no listing of the albums, no discussion about the fact that he's releasing it for free, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your assistance! I'll keep what you said in mind. Regardless of the AfD outcome, and even if in the future other members of Dethcentrik additionally become notable, it might be useful to make a band members section for Dethcentrik.BusyWikipedian (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's totally fine as long; keep it succinct and sourced. I've had to take hatchets to some "band members" sections of other articles before that told the life story of every band member, before and after joining, personal opinions about them, anecdotes, none of which was sourced in the least beat encyclopedic. Note that some personal details can be sourced to self-published sites, though we have to be careful not to pass WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help! I completed the redirect, if you get a chance please let me know what you think of the details. I'm assuming that part of why too many details aren't allowed is because if the individual members become notable on their own it warrants their own article correct? It might be my personal opinion, but I'm thinking Beverte was barely not notable, and that he will be individually notable in the very near future. If this becomes the case does that change what information about him should be on his band's page? BusyWikipedian (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And I just recreated the Dod Beverte redirect, since I imagine that that is actually how many people typing the name would type it (assuming they don't know how to access non-Latin characters). On the article, I strongly recommend not recreating it now, or the near future. I recommend waiting at least 6 months; wait until there is absolutely no doubt. Don't do it until there are absolutely, rock solid sources--i.e., not self-published, not minor interviews, not radio airplay lists. Wait until there are multiple, major reviews in sources that are already recognized by WP as being reliable.

The reasons details don't belong on the band page is because, well, the page is about the band, not its members. It should focus primarily on the band's work, their albums, tours, reviews, etc. Adding other information violates WP:UNDUE. The fact that Beverte may have an article in the future (though there is no certainty--it is entirely possible that he will fade off into relative obscurity--remember, the overwhelming majority of artists of all types will not and should not have Wikipedia articles about them) has no bearing on what information belongs in that article. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the assistance! I definitely agree on the minimum time to wait. In the meantime I will certainly do the best I can to expand the Dethcentrik article to a full-length rather than a stub, and perhaps add pages for any of the albums with significant coverage. BusyWikipedian (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, just curious, would you be able to restore Early Demos and Singles? The only reason it was previously deleted was because it was created before the poorly-written Dethcentrik article was deleted, then once that article was deleted, it was deleted. Thanks again! BusyWikipedian (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you technically need to ask the deleting admin. While the rules aren't exactly clear, there is a strong recommendation that admins not undo the administrative actions of other admins unless the decision was unambiguously wrong (this was correct at the time) or by community consensus. However, before doing so, the question is whether or not it's worth doing--yes, the article would now pass the speedy deletion criteria, but would it also survive an AfD discussion? In other words, were the sources used reliable, and were they enough to establish notability of the album (as described in WP:ALBUM)? There's no real point in restoring it if an AfD would find it non-notable anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall the exact state of the article when it was deleted. If you would be able to restore the page then move it to my userspace, I would gladly make sure it is up to the specifications for WP:Album, and fix up anything necessary.BusyWikipedian (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bots dumping stuff on user talk pages

Is there any protocol relating to bots dumping daily/weekly/whatever subscription content on user talk pages? That is, when the user has the appearance of not being involved with WP any more? Does it just go on for ever? What happens if the talk page is not being archived? I vaguely recall seeing some third party "turn off" such a subscription but without invoking TP protection. This is just a general query: sure, there is a case that is relevant but the time is not right yet. I would reckon that 6 months of inactivity might justify switching off Signpost etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I think it just continues forever. Turning on automatic archiving would probably fall under IAR, but I'd want to ask for some form of community consensus first. I'd be especially hesitant to turn off the RfCBot, since that is activated on a separate page in the WP namespace. To be honest, I actually find it helpful (as the person not retired/blocked)--sometimes I follow the RfCBot links that get left on MW's page--I don't want too many bombarding my page, but seeing a few more sometimes piques my interest. And I intentionally don't subscribe to the Signpost because so many other people who's talkpage I watch do. While a discussion at VPP would be the right place to consider such a process, my guess is that the main concern would be determining who is really gone, who is just lurking, and who is on an extended wikibreak but may be back at any moment. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although I have never followed it through I also am sometimes intrigued by the RfC notices and I also turned off Signpost because it pops up all over my watchlist. But I have definitely seen these things turned off. Hey, we'll just let someone else worry about it! Your comment about determination is valid. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)