User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

India

Can you restore India indefinite move-protection (sysop). You set it to expire in August: ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (expires 05:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)). Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Duniyaduniya

I think User:Janellwashere is a sockpuppet of User:Duniyaduniya base on his similar editing habits and uploading problems. So is 76.212.121.208. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked; uploads deleted, and I tried to revert the edits, though if someone else edited after him on an article, I may not have been able to do it. Feel free to go through any of his edits by hand and revert them. The IP I blocked for a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

166.147.69.239.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I've added a couple of the targets, though not all, to my watchlist. We may have to semi-protect if this doesn't stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA

Hello Qwyrxian. This guy is engaging in edit war on Chennai Express without discussing issues on talk page. There's consensus to keep reviews in article body instead of using rating boxes and only use BoxOfficeIndia.com for revenue updates. But he's ignoring everything. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please show me where you've explained that to this user? I don't see any comments on his/her talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

On this page Talk:Chennai Express (he's apparently stopped, though). I seriously think there is some sockpuppetry going on: 1 and 2. The reason; too many IPs and newly registered users. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please fully protect Chennai Express? User:Mastung and User:Ashermadan are edit warring without even discussing on talk page. Thanks. Fideliosr (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Fideliosr, please stop lying. Pleasant, myself and a few other editors came to a consensus that the clause should be added. You're vandalizing the page and you've been reported. So stop this! Ashermadan (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

No. User:Pleasant1623 only clearly stated that in order to stop this forced inclusion and violation of concensus. He opposed this behavior thrice on the talk page: Talk:Chennai Express Fideliosr (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, everyone, stop fighting on my talk page. First of all, my original point is that no one ever tried to talk to SUMITKRISHNAGUPTA on his/her talk page. You cannot expect that a new user will be familiar with edit histories or with article talk pages. You must always discuss problems with a user before you try to bring them for administrative attention. Except in really obvious cases of bad behavior (like someone threatening someone with violence, or blatant corporate spamming) we do not block before warning. Furthermore, I find that the overall tone on that article talk page is pretty hostile. Finally, I'm not going to help enforce your "BOI only" source, as I consider it to be fundamentally wrong. I've long been tempted to bring it up for review at WT:FILM, because I believe that this alleged agreement among veteran Indian film editors is a fundamental violation of WP:OWN. I haven't because I simply don't care that much, and arguing isn't worth my time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

That's right. At least on your talk page, I've never been hostile or disrespectful to anyone. I highly appreciate the great job you are performing as an admin for years. The primary concern was sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry to which I've opened a case. Regards, Fideliosr (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

안녕하십니까. 독도에 대한 문제로 이야기 할 것이 있어서 글을 올립니다.

안녕하세요. 독도에 대한 기자 활동을 하고 있는 yoo jin 입니다. 제가 독도 또는 일본해에 대한 내용을 찾아 건의를 하시면 당신께서 항상 답변을 해주시더라구요. 하지만 좋은 내용은 아니더군요. 노력 안하셨다는 말씀 하셨습니다. F를 주시겠다고 하셨죠. 영어실력이 부족하기 때문에 양식을 받아 글을 쓸수밨에 없는 상황이였습니다. 저도 저의나라 언어를 사용한다면 얼마든지 이야기 할 수 있습니다. 영어가 세계 공용언어이기 때문에 영어로 쓴다면 훨씬 이해하기 쉬울 것 같았습니다. 하지만 제가 어리석었군요. 그냥 저의 언어로 말하겠습니다. 간단히 말하겠습니다. 독도는 역사적인 측면에서 본다면 일본정부에서 그린 대부분의 지도에는 독도가 표시되어 있지 않습니다.일본 지도중 가장 오래된 교키도(지도)에 독도가 없습니다. 그러나 17세기 포르투갈과의 교류로 지도에 서양적 기법을 도입해 보다 정확한 지도를 제작하기 시작했다고 합니다. 그러나 17세기 부터 제작된 일본의 포르트라노지도에 독도는 나와있지 않습니다. 1912년 에도막부가 제작한 일본 최초의 공식지도 케이초일본도에도 독도는 없습니다. 쇼호일본지도(1655,공식지도), 겐로쿠일본지도(1702공식지도), 교호일본지도(1717공식지도),대일본연해여지전도(1821공식지도), 마지막으로 1877년 일본의 육군참모국이 작성한 공식지도인 대일본전도에도 독도는 없습니다.그러나 1894년 일본이 제작한 신찬 조선국전도에는 독도가 한반도와 같은 색으로 한국영토로 나타나 있습니다. 이것이 무슨 의미를 나타내는지 아시겠습니까? 더 자세한 이야기를 나누었으면 좋겠습니다. 제 메일 입니다. 답장 바랍니다. 영어가 모국어라면 얼마든지 저의의 의견을 반영하겠지만 다른나라 언어이기 때문에 저희의 의견을 제대로 반영할수 없어서 정말 화가납니다. 메일 꼭 보내주시기 바랍니다. 저희가 이렇게 활동하는 이유는 왜곡된 역사의 진실을 바로 잡기 위해 활동하는 것입니다. 독도는 옛날부터 지금까지 대한민국의 소유지이며 동해가 일본해라고 주장하는 것은 저희로써는 납득하지 못 할 문제이기 때문입니다. 지금 일본은 세계 모든 인터넷 지도에 동해를 일본해로 표기하고 독도를 다케시마라고 표기한 지도를 퍼트리고 있습니다. 예를 들면, 당신이 대한민국 사람이라 생각해보세요. 대한민국에게는 아주 옛날부터 독도라는 이름을 가진 섬이 있습니다. 하지만 다른 나라가 터무니없는 주장으로 자신의 땅이라고 주장하고 그것을 전 세계에 퍼뜨려 인터넷, 다른나라가 알고있는 지식들이 독도는 대한민국의 땅이 아닌 타국의 땅으로 인식하고 있습니다. 기분이 어떻겠습니까? 화가나지 않나요? 그렇기 때문에 저희는 잘못된 역사를 바로잡기 위해 이러한 활동을 하는 것이고 앞으로도 쭉 할것입니다. 왜냐하면 독도는 대한민국의 땅이기때문이지요. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.48.66.115 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can't read Korean. I fed your words through Google Translate, and, as I guessed, this is a rant about Liancourt Rocks and the Sea of Japan. First, I'm not going to have a conversation with you by email, because we don't speak the same language--we'll have far too much confusion if we try to use translation software. Second, on the specific points; I don't really have a personal opinion about Liancourt Rocks; even if I thought that the islands belonged to Japan (and I haven't done the research), the fact is that Korea now occupies them, and that's not likely to change, so I don't think it's worth fighting about. As for the Sea of Japan, in this case, I have done the research, and it overwhelmingly shows that long before Japan began its imperialism, the sea was widely called "Sea of Japan" (or equivalent in other languages) across the world. It's not a legacy of Japanese aggression--it's the widely accepted language. More importantly, numerous international bodies and national governments agree that the correct English name is Sea of Japan. Now, if you want to fight, as a country, to get the name changed, then do so, but you can't do it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia always follows what sources say. You can't argue here about ancient maps and historical records, because all we care are what reliable secondary sources say, and they overwhelmingly say the name of the body of water is the Sea of Japan. In other words, you have to change world opinion first, then you can change the Wikipedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. 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) 05:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:75.71.186.64's block

Please consider revoking TP access as well, as he has refactored User:Daniel Case's comment on the unblock request. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I did this, and doubled the length of the block. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I concur with the extension and removal of TP access. Hopefully the person will be bored of this by the time the block is finished, but, if not, it wouldn't surprise me if we need another round. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: Revision as of 02:27, 14 August 2013

Regarding: Revision as of 02:27, 14 August 2013 (edit) (undo) (thank) Qwyrxian (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 568390112 by Not of the world (talk) how are those related? You can't just add random other missionaries to India)

You reverted my addition of see also section with a few prominent missionaries and evangelists who are popular among Chrisians in India. I see that you are an administrator, and I thank you for your edit/suggestion. But, I would like to quote from wikipedia's page WP:ALSO to warrant my action:

"The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

The articles I listed in the see also category of the pages where my edit were reverted are more than tangentially related, and I am sure people who visit the pages will find the see also section and the articles I listed to be useful. Also I did not choose them randomly, but rather on the basis of popularity locally. Matters like these, I believe, might be better handled by administrators who are from India.

Also, I have seen tags on wikipedia that read something like "This page is not linked from anywhere else in wikipedia. Please try to add it in categories or add links from other articles so that the chance of people visiting the article might improve". So if wikipedia is going to isolate articles and revert see also sections which in no way were obtrusive, redundant, unrelated or excessive, then may be wikipedia is contradicting itself.

I saw that you are an administrator. So I will wait till I get a reply warranting your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not of the world (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC) not the world (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

First I hope that you don't mind that I shortened the section title; long titles like that mess up the automatic edit summaries and table of contents. Second, while it's true that they can be tangentially related, there needs to be some form of connection. The fact that they're religious leaders in the same country is too far apart for me. This is, of course, a judgment call...but think about what would happen to the See Also section of a Christian pastor in the US or the UK if links like the ones you added were used? Every article would end up being thousands of lines long as we listed every other notable person in the same field. If there were people who worked at the same church, or who studied at the same ministry, or were otherwise somehow connected by more than having the same profession and religion, then I could see the justification. As for the orphan issue, yes, this is a problem, but there's actually a way we can fix both issues (your prior concern and the orphan one): if we create a list article that collects together prominent Christian speakers in India, then put a See Also link to that one list in each of these articles, I believe that would be acceptable. So, for example, if we had List of Christian leaders in India, I believe this would be a reasonable way to have both. I will admit that I'm not 100% sure on this; some people might argue that such a list is an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" (see WP:LISTN), but it's worth a try. Would you be interested in helping creating and populate such a list article? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I will try doing that. But still I had added only three of four articles to the see also sections. So if some people don't agree with the concept of listing related articles as separate pages, should I rather go with listing of related articles under see also sections unless it is too long, in which case a separate article would be preferable. Moreover the category Indian evangelicals itself has only 14 articles listed in it. So, wouldn't that be preferable to just add few related articles on more popular personalities that might be of interest to the people viewing or stumbling upon the pages in which I had added the see also categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not of the world (talk • contribs) 07:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) not the world (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the concern, though--why did you choose those 4? Why not the other 10? Some might argue easily that any choice you make is an WP:NPOV violation because you're promoting a few specific ones rather than others. Should you choose the first ones? The ones who have the most congregants (not that you could ever reliably get that information)? How could you possibly judge "most popular", especially since one of the people you added was promoting Christianity in the 19th century, while today's preachers have access to Web-based television shows? That's why I was saying that if there were some other connection, then I could see making those specific links; absent a specific connection, I think it's unfair (i.e., non-neutral) to single out some and exclude others. Creating and linking to a list of all Indian evangelicals (or, possibly, all Indian Christian leaders, because I'm also loathe to try to define what an "evangelical Christian" is vs. a "mainstream/Protestant/etc." Christian) would thus be fully neutral, because you'd basically be connecting it to "everyone who we've got an article on". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction on Jattnijj

Hello, regarding your recent warning, I believe this user has since made disruptive edits ([1] [2]) that may now warrant imposing such sanctions. I feel this user is showing clear pattern of disruptive editing including WP:TEDIOUS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and I thought I should bring this to your attention. Cheers. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit to Sarbloh Granth seems to me to be an error; I don't think he was disruptively removing the cats. The Jat edit, however, is a major problem, and may result in me seeking sanctions. I'll take a look, as it's not an easy process (and I'm too WP:INVOLVED to invoke them myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanderful and Common Outcomes

I consider your comments at Talk:Wanderful Media regarding WP:Common outcomes to be, at best, deceitful, and, at worst, openly disruptive. You added those lines to Common Outcomes less than 30 minutes before you made the comment on the article's talk page...plus, the statement is blatantly false. The 350 employees statement was the opinion of one Wikipedian. It is not supported, as far as I know, by general practices at AfD. Had I closed that AfD, I would have literally ignored Vegaswikipedian's comment, because it has no basis in policies or guidelines. We measure notability of companies per WP:CORP and/or WP:GNG. Part of the point behind these policies is that they do not have arbitrary numerical standards of any type, positive or negative. A company of 2 people could easily meet WP:GNG, and a company of 500 easily might not. We care about what reliable sources think. But my real point in commenting here is that it is unacceptable to make a claim to a new user about our rules, then point them to an essay (which is helpful but not definitive) that you yourself had changed only minutes before. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And now it's definitely time for you to go to the essay's talk page before attempting more changes. You can't push the burden on to other editors; since you're changing what is practically a guideline, the burden is on you to show that the change is necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian. Thank you for all your comments; I read them all and they all make sense. I have now finally replied on the essay's talk page. As for your comments above: I suspect it is true that most 350-employee companies fail AfD because suitable sources don't exist, although of course there are many exceptions. I hear your point above about not pointing a new user to an essay I just edited. You are right: it was wrong and unhelpful. Do you think it would be better that I should apologize to the new user, or better to do nothing? Sorry, my custom is generally not to watchlist other users' talk pages. If you reply, I request that you please kindly move the conversation back to my talk page; if I reply to you, I can do the same. If you really are against doing so, {{talkback}} is another alternative. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an apology is necessary; at this point the damage has been undone. Thank you for understanding the concerns. I'll talkback you after I answer the next section. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One paragraph???

Seriously, I'm beginning to believe that you are being intentionally disruptive. There is not now nor has there ever been any sort of rule saying a reference must discuss a subject for more than a paragraph. Yes, it's true that a passing mention doesn't establish notability, but it most certainly can be a reference for a specific piece of information. We don't remove all sources that don't establish notability. Do you really not understand our rules, or are you just so adamant that you don't like some businesses that you're bending the rules to try to justify deletion? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the Wanderful Media article, since a stubborn COI editor has now created it twice. But I hope to get it deleted without bending any rules. Where did I get "at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more"? To see the answer, please visit WP:AFCR. I know: it's not even a guideline. Anyway, please visit it. Scroll down to "Expand this box to learn about notability and verifiability". Click "show". There, they claim that SIGCOV is "at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more". I think what they're trying to imply is that a subject is only notable if there are several references which each spend least one lengthy paragraph discussing the subject. This seems like a sensible rule of thumb which I suspect many AfD contributors agree with, though I know it's not a guideline or even close to a guideline. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, but the problem here is that you're confusing two totally different things. Yes, it's true that that the reference doesn't establish notability. But not every reference has to do that. References exist to verify claims in WP articles. They don't exist to demonstrate notability. So the reference needs to stay to verify the claim it was connected to. Now, you can still argue that said reference is insufficient to establish notability; the place to do that is on the AfD. For example, I've seen articles with up to a couple dozen references taken to AfD; each reference was "valid" as a reference, but even taken together they didn't establish notability, because each was just a passing notice (or maybe even didn't refer to the article subject at all). So please don't remove a reference to an article because it doesn't establish notability; remove them only if they are not WP:RS or they don't actually verify what they claim to verify (or other similar reasons). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

COI editor

User:Gizgalasi is now spamming the Tom Reiss article with his COI fringe theories. Can you please help? Softlavender (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not spam. This is mere mention that there is another point of view which is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia to enable readers to see a larger picture. Gizgalasi (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC) gizgalasi

Removal of the links was correct, Softlavender. However, I don't think it's fair to label that journal's theories as fringe; no one (those supporting Reiss or those supporting the AI theory) have really been able to demonstrate which side is more widely accepted by other literary scholars. But we certainly shouldn't occlude Reiss's page with the competing theory. However, I did add a couple of qualifiers on the Reiss page, since it certainly is clear that the theory he proposed is disputed. Readers who really care will go to the Essed Bey page to learn more.

Gizgalasi, I want you to know that I no longer care about WP:INVOLVED with respect to this case. I don't know why I can't get enough other admins involved, but the only other one who was is no longer editing. As such, I will block you again if you add even one more link, in a reference or in an external link, to any work published in Azerbaijan International. You have admitted to being a member of that organization, and the fact that almost all of your edits have been to add references to that publication or otherwise promote its work indicates to me that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but are rather here to promote your employer (or whatever relationship it is you have with AI). If you think some reference to that journal is warranted anywhere on Wikipedia, bring it up on an article talk page. If no one responds, follow the instructions at WP:EDITREQ. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your qualifiers Qwyrxian and for trying to make the article reflect a fairer perspective. However, I would submit that the qualifiers would best be placed in another location. It is not that Reiss thinks that Essad Bey / Lev Nussimbaum was born in Kiev. He was. Though Reiss's book says that he was born in Baku, it was Azerbaijan International's research that showed that Kiev National Archives keeps the registry of Nussimbaum's birth which was originally registered in the Jewish Synagogue in Kiev as was his circumcision a week later. Nor is it Reiss's opinion that Lev Nussimbaum was a prolific author writing under the name of Essad Bey. That can easily be proven - though he was most likely more of a broker who enhanced texts for his agent (Werner Schendell) who in 1934 passed him three titles (Russian Peter the Great, Turkish Enver Pasha, US President Warren Harding) but warned him to take a year off between each book and not to appear to be so prolific.

But where the qualifer really belongs is on the statement that Essad Bey wrote the novel "Ali and Nino" under the pseudonym Kurban Said. It has not really been established that Essad Bey had the right to use that pseudonym. Yes, Essad Bey was involved in writing "Ali and Nino" - especially the folkloric passages of the novel which can be traced to some of Essad Bey's earlier books as he was a "cut and paste" author. But for sure, the original core of the novel are not his ideas, but those of Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli's. That's where the qualifier really would matter the most. That is the point in question - the Ali and Nino link. Even Essad Bey himself suggests that he doctored the texts of book: "that there were only two times that I thought neither of the publishing company, nor of royalties, but just wrote happily away. These were the books "Stalin" and "Ali and Nino." The heroes of the novel simply come to me demanding, 'Give us shape' - we also possess certain characteristics that YOU'VE LEFT OUT and we want to travel, among other things," Quote page 302 in Reiss (Essad Bey writing to Italian friend Pima Andraea shortly before his death. Thanks.

Also, note that the links to Essad Bey being Kurban Said - to newspapers and magazines such as Guardian, etc. - they are only quoting Reiss in reviews of his book. So that the reference should revert to Reiss. Those other links - fine to put them as reviews of Orientalist - but they are merely regurgitating Reiss and not providing proof from their own research that Essad Bey is Kurban Said. So the link back to Reiss would be appropriate. Put links to his reviews - in another statement. Thanks Gizgalasi (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)gizgalasi

Regarding Arjun Dass Grover (Dr. A.D. Grover - Indian Ophthalmologist)

Dear Qwyrxian,

Hello, First of all I really appreciate for your time and editing done to the article mentioned above. I am am sorry I had to undo your editing. I am the Grand-Son of Dr. Grover and a budding Ophthalmologist from AIIMS. I request you to kindly bear with me for sometime, as I am in the process of finding references / citations. Though I had already cut down "non-neutral" and "overblown" things in the article (which was originally published in some newspapers in the end-1987). If you feel it is still not upto the WP guidelines I will edit it. Also, I am in the process of finding the original newspaper articles during that time. Please bear with me till then. As far as his "Life" section (personal life) is concerned, I am afraid I may not find much. But, I pledge that the information provided is absolutely true and with best of my knowledge. Thanking you in anticipation for your co-operation.

Thanks & Regards,

Dr. Rishabh Grover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh2211 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that the thing you wrote in WIkipedia is a copy of the newspaper article? In that case, it needs to be changed immediately or actually summarily deleted. Copying a newspaper article into Wikipedia is a copyright violation, which is at least a strong violation of our rules and more likely actually illegal. Please confirm that you have substantially changed from the text of the article.

As for the life section, I am now tagging it as unsourced. If you cannot find a source within a week, I will delete it. Per WP:V, you can't personally just assert it's true--we must have sources that verify it. If sources don't exist, then the info can't be in Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see that several other editors have reverted you. I had thought you made some minor changes, but rather you returned the article to a completely unacceptable form. Here's the thing--you probably shouldn't be writing this article, because you have a personal and professional connection to the subject. This makes you unable to write neutrally and per our policies. At this point, you should probably make any suggestions for changes on the article's talk page, rather than edit the article directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

B_de2002

I have cited several sources. The matter that have not been edited by others are also original research. If they can stay so can the bits on personal background and legacy. And also the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.224.247 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No, there cannot be any unsourced information in Wikipedia articles. Quite a bit of that article needs to be removed unless its verified by sources, but for now tagging some of it is okay. The problem with the stuff you added is that not only was it unsourced, it was very much a violation of WP:NPOV. You weren't giving neutral information about the person, you were praising him (eulogizing). That's not what Wikipedia is for. That's why I deleted it rather than marking it as unsourced. Finally, if you are, in fact, the subject's son, you should not be editing the article directly, for exactly the problems outlined here: you are unable to write neutrally and following our other policies. Instead, you should only make comments on the article's talk page with suggestions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Request re ANI close

Hi, I don't follow these JW/anti-JW battles but every time they intrude into mainstream space it seems that neither side is blameless. Given that the bigger of the two battlers here filed a "counterclaim" (his words I think) against the lesser please note my request but it's up to you. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll add some subsections, that way I can "close" the Maximillian part, then leave your new request open. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, if Dougweller and John Carter really think that the specimen diff is appropriate with Talk page guidelines then I go with them. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Since when did the Manual of Style become binding on editors?

Is it your position that the Manual of Style (MOS) is mandatory, per your participation in the edit war regarding LGBT rights in Algeria? You've got it completely wrong about when the MOS can be disregarded. You invented the following standard from thin air: an editor who wants to break the MOS would need to first get consensus to do that, and they would need an extremely good rationale. AfricaTanz (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The WP:MOS, just like all guidelines on Wikipedia, has always been binding on everyone. You can't just unilaterally declare a guideline doesn't apply to you or an article you're working on. Since it's a guideline, it is used with discretion, and could be overruled for good reason, but the responsibility is always going to be on the editor who wants to overrule the site-wide rule. That's the whole point behind guidelines and policies: they represent best practice (in the case of policies, basically required practice) that the community as a whole has agreed to (directly or indirectly). Again, if you want to argue for some reason that it's better to link the second instance of a term rather than the first, um, go ahead, but I can't actually imagine a logic that would make the second instance better than the first. But the burden is on you. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your lumping together of policies with guidelines shows a shocking ignorance of how Wikipedia works. They are entirely different things. In the article in question, an argument was made about how users benefit from second linkings. You ignored it, and now you say it never happened. Nice. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? I have over 15 times more edits than you, and I've been an admin for 4 times longer than you've been an editor. I recommend you read WP:POLICIES. Some guidelines hold essentially more weight than some policies do, and there are even essays that have practically the force of policy. Furthermore, simply because you assert that there's a special exception here does not suddenly mean there is one. Any time another editor attempts to bring a page in line with a guideline or policy, and it is abundantly obvious to everyone (including you--you do admit you're not following the guideline here) that the guideline is not being followed, it is incumbent upon the editor who wants to get one of the "occasional exceptions" to first establish consensus to do so. So, please, get consensus on the article talk page to have a special, specific exception to the rule on linking. If you cannot get it, you can attempt dispute resolution, or even ask for guidance on WT:MOS to see if the MOS-experts think there's a specific rationale for an exception. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hi i'm Coyote wadi removed blocked. The blocked for User:WayKurat for five days. Thanks (User:Coyote wadi) (talk) 04:41 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't block editors, only admins can do that, and only when someone breaks the rules. You were blocked. You were blocked for good reason--because you were edit warring and violating our rules. Don't be disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't drag my name in here. I don't know what are you (Coyote wadi) up to and you are the one that vandalizes articles and inserts hoax information. And who are you (Coyote wadi) to post this in my talk page? You are not an administrator. -WayKurat (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Barun De

Semi-ing Barun De is not going to solve the issue immediately because they are in fact B de2002 (talk · contribs) editing while logged out. They've also been hitting Kumar Suresh Singh and I'm surprised that they have not yet spotted my ongoing prunes at Jyotish Chandra De (nn, in my opinion) and Brajendranath De (probably also not notable). This is familial obituarising etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine--at least the person has been identifying themselves when writing on talk pages. I see the actual account hasn't been used since may. If the person jumps back to the main account to try to get around the semi, I'll block. Or ask someone else, I haven't decided yet. I'm honestly beginning to feel that the steadily decreasing number of admins, especially in problematic topic areas, means we need to be a little bit more lenient about how we apply WP:INVOLVED. I haven't actually crossed my previous boundary yet, but I may.

I will add those other articles to my watchlist as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, they're also responsible for Basanta Kumar De, from which I recently removed fake refs etc before sending it on its way. - Sitush (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ouch, I'd be wary of stretching the involved envelope. If any among the navel-gazers of the admin corps were to see that, it is you who would get into bother. We seem to be doing a fairly good job of shooting ourselves in the foot nowadays. - Sitush (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Something else that I do not understand in this palaver is that all of the IPs - which are behaviourally and geographically the same - are static. I'm struggling to figure out why they are changing so frequently. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

B_de2002

Then let's drop the section on legacy. And please, don't mention the birth and death dates. The years should suffice. And also, I am referencing the piece as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.146 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. If the death dates are referenced, they should be included. If they're not, they should be removed. And please go read WP:RS, because you are NOT NOT NOT referencing the pages per WP guidelines. Yes, sometimes you are, like when you add in citations to good newspaper articles, but often you're not, because you're just adding random unsourced info. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Musakhel District, Pakistan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Balochi and Saraiki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Qwyrxian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-Vatsan34 (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Wanderful Media

I know you mean well in your fighting with KF330 (talk · contribs) on the Wanderful Media article. But why spend your valuable time? It looks from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderful Media (2nd nomination) like the page is destined to be deleted this week anyway. :) If you reply, please {{talkback}} me; this is easy if you use Twinkle. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Kashmiri problems/inane talk page comments

See Special:Contributions/108.29.95.63 - this is the sock/meat of 65.88.88.203 (talk · contribs) whom you blocked on 1 August for disruption on Kashmiri articles and completely inane comments on various other article talk pages, usually but not always about schools. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

72 hours on that one. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ali page

May I ask why you reverted this sourced content:

Ali still had no money, nothing for a dowry, nothing for the customary gifts of jewels for his bride or the expenses of marriage. Fortunately Uthman stepped in at the moment. Fixed the value of Ali's newly won body armor at a generously high price, he insisted on buying it for five hundred dirhams. Four hundred could then be set aside as a dowry for Fatimah, leaving a hundred for all other expenses. Later Uthman presented the armor back to Ali as a wedding present.

It appears in many books, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like something you'd read in a story book, or a religious tract. The phrasing is so dramatic, that I can't figure out what is the actual "factual" verified content behind it. We need to phrase it in more neutral serious terminology, and, if it's in any way disputed, then attributing it to particular people. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It is actually a copyright violation from p 41 of this. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Welspun Energy

Thanks for your note on my Talk: page however I already did RFC comment on the Talk:Welspun Energy page, noting that the individual is a WP:SPA as well as advertising. Also no, you don't get to pretend what is civil and what is not civil, and noting that an Editor is engaged in advertising and employing a WP:SPA is not "verging upon uncivil."

If you require assistance finding my RFC comment on Welspun Energy, let me know. Thanks Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Damotclese, the reason why Qwyrxian left that uncivil comment on your Talk: page is because an editor cleaned up the RFC on the Talk:Welspun Energy page. Your RFC comments along with almost all of the RFC comments have been removed, aged out, if you check the page you'll see that only a few comments remain. That was why Qwyrxian was confused. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that perhaps as a relatively new user, Damotclese, you had thought that the responses on your talk were the "response" requested by RFCbot. I apologize for not checking. As for the "uncivil" thing, I was actually talking about the RfC above that one which you characterized as "stupid". While I do understand that said RfC seems to be...fairly trivial (to put it mildly), I just wanted you to take care about the phrasing. I had no problem with you calling an SPA spammer a spammer, or even advocating for a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ha, BiologistBabe, both you and Qwyrxian missed seeing my RFC comment, and while some of the comments have been deleted, mine is still there. Here it is:

Greetings, I was randomly selected to review the RFC and this conflict should be a no-brainer.

Problem 1: Reading the article itself it is obvious that we are looking at advertising, not an encyclopedia entry. The article needs to be re-written to eliminate the obvious advertising and make it encyclopedic. After all, Wikipedia strives to live up to the quality standards of historic, written encyclopedias, and the article in question fails to meet even minimal encyclopedic standards.

Problem 2: The user name Savwelspun violates Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:U which is a second reason to ban the user/company advertiser. The fact that the user is specifically a Single Purpose Account als qualifies for the user to be banned.

Problem 3: The article is employing fortune telling which is also against Wikipedia policy. The article talks about what the company plans to do, it does not cover the history of the company, no biographics, nothing that makes the article encyclopedic.

Proposed solution: Ban user Savwelspun for policy violations and when the company creates more WP:SPA user accounts, IP-block the company. Also editor WikiDan61 needs to restore the edits that WikiDan61 has proposed and a Third Party needs to review the changes so that the RFC can be closed. Damotclese (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

BiologistBabe and Qwyrxian, no problem, it's easy to miss seeing text even as it's being read, and I greatly appreciate both of your help. Great seeing people care enough to volunteer on this project to comment when they see something. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah hell. Yes. In my defense, I don't get much sleep at night -- lol. Sorry, you're right, I see it's there now. At MRIID they work us to death, some times literally. BiologistBabe (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Fake article you might know coming up in search engine hits

You might remember Sunnibarelvi, one of Msoamu's sockpuppet accounts. During the SPI discussion, someone brought up the WP:FAKEARTICLE guideline as the guy's userspace at Portal:Sunnibarelvi was a violation. Well, running some searches for reliable sources on the Qamaruzzaman article, I found that the Msoamu sock's userspace is now coming up in search engine hits and people trying to find legit info could stumble upon it. Additionally, the link to Arabic Wikipedia goes to the Arabic portal for Sufism, as though that sockpuppeteer and his fake article fantasies somehow represent the practice. Do you know how I can handle this? Is there such as thing as portals for deletion? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Daaaamn, I just asked you that without searching. Sorry. Found it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No wait, I might need your advice on this issue. I'm browsing that portal now, and not all of it is miscellany - back in March, Sunnibarelvi created a small fiefdom of overtly rosy Barelvi articles, likely in order to avoid having to directly discuss reliable sources and NPOV on the main article. These include Sunni Barelvi Movement in India and Sunni Barelvi Movement in Pakistan. I'm going to sift through the account's contribs in the coming days, but considering that we have a portal and at least two articles, what's the best way to proceed? Nominate the portal for deletion and the articles for deletion individually? My concern is that someone unfamiliar with the years of drama and sockpuppeting might not realize the strength of the POV and WP:NOTHERE issues behind the creation of the article's. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I fall into the category of people you describe in the last few sentences. I really can't tell, just in a quick glance, what's wrong with the articles. It seems like the titling is wrong at least, right? Why aren't they called Barelvi Islam in Pakistan and Barelvi Islam in India? I also don't understand the terminology well enough to know if these are WP:POVFORK or WP:CONTENTFORK. Try taking a look at Islam in India and Islam in Pakistan, and look at the articles linked from there--are the Sunnibarelvi created articles forks of any of those? If so, we can start with redirection to the pre-existing articles. I'd recommend keeping up the portal at least for the moment while you try to track down more info, because at least that way it's more easily organized. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just the titling and the POV pushing I've found, but the notability of those as independent topics and the time at which they were created. Msoamu created a number of articles on non-notable subjects which were deleted back in the late 2000s, and they were likely created in good faith. These new articles were created with the Sunnibarelvi account, which came after a few blocks of Msoamu and Shabiha and after heavy involvement in mediation on Barelvi - my suspicion is that Msoamu realized that they were fighting a losing battle on the main article and created these as a means of pushing a number of factually inaccurate claims elsewhere.

Those are my concerns regarding motives for creation. Beyond that, looking at both articles, neither establishes notability of the movement's existence specifically in one country or another to a level which would warrant separate articles; I haven't trimmed away unverified claims yet but were someone to do so, we might be left with just a few sentences each - all with material already available on the main Barelvi article. If a redirect is a better idea, it might be better to redirect them to Barelvi - based on a quick spot check, I only see four reliable sources between the two articles that aren't currently used on the main Barelvi article. I still need to sweep through the accounts older contribs as well, as creating a large amount of non-notable articles on subjects related to the movement is a behavior I saw from the main account and one of its socks back in 2007-2008. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Bombay Velvet

Don't know if its the case of your or Wikipedia's double standards, because there are umpteen pages on upcoming movies on Wikipedia; would you go ahead and delete also Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, for example? I presume not. Pick up magazines and newspapers in India and Bombay Velvet progress is reported there, if the movie doesn't hit the cinemas the page can get deleted then. Why should we not create a page for a movie that's being made and is the talk of the town, obviously people are curious to know more.I suggest to editors like you to do some constructive work, deleting other's text and pages is damn easy, creating one is far far difficult (and this is the reason that drives me away again and again from Wikipedia, destructive groups of folks like you, deleting/banning stuff on will. Please construct. Debashish (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, principal filming has begun. That is the very first minimum requirement to pass WP:NFF. Has principal filming begun on Bombay Velvet? If so, what kinds of coverage already exists? You assert it's the "talk of the town", but the references included only talked about possible casting decisions, none discussing the actual production of the film (again, a requirement of WP:NFF).

On your more general complaint about "deleters"...well, I'll say this out loud and directly, knowing that many people watch this page: I have absolutely no problem "driving away" editors who create non-notable articles. I have created quite a bit of content, including substantial expansions of articles, a few articles from scratch, significant research, etc. I just happen to have more time and inclination to do other things on Wikipedia these days. But unlike some people, I don't think that Wikipedia needs every editor who wants to come in to "create content". We need editors who want to come in and create content that meets our guidelines. So if you believe that Bombay Velvet can meet our notability guidelines and the rules of WP:NFF, then revert my redirection and add the required sources and discussion. Or discuss it first on the article's talk page if you're not sure if your sources are sufficient. But it's in neither my fault nor, in fact, a bad thing, if my actions get you to not create inappropriate contact. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

At least you admit that you & your like believe in monopolizing and policing Wikipedia; if any of the founders of this community place should be reading this, this could be the sole reason for being booted out. Its easy to hide behind a pseudonym and keep on feeling good policing other's stuff in the virtual world with no fear of reprimand, and I wish you luck with that. May be this narcissism is helping you survive, but many folks like me have better things to do in the real world :) Debashish (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. 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) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, I should have notified you of the mention in the Kolkata IP/De ANI thread. Daft thing is, I have deliberately not notified you of a mention elsewhere (unrelated) - it seems that I can't do right for doing wrong at the moment! - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's no problem; for me, at least, seeing it pop up on the notification was fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to review this, which refers to a comment that you made on AfD. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw it yesterday, and thought about replying, but didn't get around to it before he archived the thread. I think the relist was wrong, but not too terribly wrong; for me, I'd probably relist if there were only 2 delete comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

speedy deletion declined

the only indication that the place even exists is a forum posting by someone who calls themselves "ecotourindia". overwhelmingly, the non-wikipedia google results are sourced to the wp page. that to me sounds like "unambiguously promotional". -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It might mean it's non-notable, but it doesn't mean it's promotional. Again, how can you "promote" a waterfall? I really don't understand the rationale there. Suggest a merge, take it to AfD, whatever, but it certainly isn't G11. As a note, I just declined another one you made on a mall, because the promotional problem was fixed by hacking out a bunch of the text, and since there was an assertion of winning a local award, that is sufficient to at least consider it maybe notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the user page (Zmaassarani) of the article creator? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Zmaassarani, sorry -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

re: the waterfall, people promote the geological features of their properties as tourist destinations all the time. if its only source is from a tourism website, and it is otherwise non-notable (or even identifiable) that to me means that the page is there solely to advertise or promote that place as a tourist destination. thus, unambiguously promotional. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC)And I've been deleting some of that user's creations. But, again, the article was on a waterfall. It didn't talk about all of the great services at the waterfall, it didn't argue that the waterfall was a perfect tourist attraction...there was nothing promotional about it. And, again, on the other mall, I believe that the award it won may be an indication of notability. I'm not certain of it, but I am certain that it deserves its 7 days at AfD, especially for others to search for sources, especially since most likely if there are good sources, they aren't in English. Just because an account is primarily promotional does not mean that everything it creates is automatically eligible for G11; sometimes you can save an article by removing all of the promotional material and retaining a simple, factual stub. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

what, exactly, is the point of that? If someone in the future decides it's notable enough to have an article they can userfy the deleted article. The article was previously deleted, and this is a clear attempt to keep a solely promotional article by using an alternative spelling. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is that if the subject is notable, or might be notable, we want the article. Period. Some malls, for example, are notable. If we could verify that award in a reliable source (i.e., not a press release), I think it probably should remain an article. The waterfall, I'm guessing, should be deleted, but I also think it should probably remain as a redirect to Jeddah or whatever other regional article mentions it, assuming, again, we can find at least one RS. Remember, speedy deletion by definition is only for absolutely unambiguous cases; "normal" deletion is the 7 day AfD process. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for your reply, and you learn something new everyday. I might just do that an suggest a merger. I do have to say many of the page connected to Thomas the tank engine are in pretty pure state, and a big brush is really needed. --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Also What is the other type of Deletion? ie NOT the speedy one? just for Ref? --Crazyseiko (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion. But to do so, you need to show that the article violates our policies in some way. You may want to look at what other TV shows do for their article lists, as I think you'll find that the "list of lists" is pretty common for very long running series. But if you really want to suggest deletion, please read WP:LISTN, which is our guideline governing the notability of lists. If you take the article to AfD, there will be a 7 day discussion, in which any user can participate, and after that time an administrator will decide what the consensus is, based on user input and our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I shall kept for ref. I have no plans to place the page to AFD at this moment of time. Can i double check with you about something else?Tag {{expert-subject}} for articles needing expert attention. What happens when this is added? I dont plan to add it to the page we have been talking about, but pages linked to it?--Crazyseiko (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion of 2009 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

I just wanted let you know that you forgot to delete the talk page when you deleted 2009 Missouri Valley Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That was on purpose. For some reason I was thinking that sometimes when an article is deleted via AfD, we can but don't have to retain the talk page with the link to the deletion discussion. But looking over the deletion process instructions again, it doesn't say that anywhere. I'm not sure why I was thinking that.... Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FA4Life

Your speedy deletion of Forged Alliance Forever page, was so fast (~30 minutes for discussion) that it was not possible to even have a discussion. Please allow the discussion to take place before you make the choice to delete, A7 reason for deletion is not applicable in this case. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FA4life (talk • contribs)

I've moved this here to my talk page where responses should take place. However, I'll be replying on your talk page, because you're about to become unable to edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

disruptive edits - cinema of andhra

intro is not excessive, reverting disruptive edits, if u wish to correct bad sources in commercial stance section, u are absolutely welcome to do so, in that section, INTRO IS NOT EXCESSIVE I may report u to admin if u abuse the article and subject to content deletion. Murrallli (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

First, you are always welcome to report me wherever you want, although you may want to note that I am myself an admin and have a fairly good grasp of policy. Of the changes I made, some of them are actually mandatory (like the removal of sources that don't meet WP:RS), while some are a matter of editorial discretion (deciding exactly which movies to mention in the History section). I'm certainly open to a discussion on the points that are discretionary--simply start a talk page discussion on the matter. Heck, you're even welcome to revert me, as long as you don't revert the mandatory changes (RS, grammar, removal of non-neutral statements, etc.).

For the lead, I'll go ahead and explain on the article talk page so that others can be involved in discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

contd:

lead section is okay and neutral, list of 2 crore gross films, 1 crore gross films, not required Murrallli (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

misleading edit summaries by you

where could u notice info about a single person in history of cinema of andhra pradesh, what are u upto vandalism or copy edit??? Murrallli (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't create a separate section for each sentence, Murrallli. One section per subject is the rule, and you're pointlessly bloating up Qwyrxian's table of contents. Your accusations of "disruptive edits" and "vandalism" are nonsensical, as Qwyrxian was performing much-needed cleanup of the article. Bishonen | talk 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

I agree with Bishonen that this would be better as a single section. I'll respond to the specific question on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

edit warring

I am correcting ur vandalism and bad sources, kindly stop ur edit warring and obey 3RR. Doesn't matter whether i login or not, I dont have times

I am correcting the material which is not properly sourced, will u allow the other editor to contribute or not?? this is a content dispute (which is ur problem), do not blame it on sources, and ur completely deleting the content with ur vandalism. 14.139.95.98 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, no you're not. You're returning bad grammar, sources that don't meet WP:RS, and information that doesn't meet WP:N to the article.

And you are right that it doesn't matter if you log in or not--your edits are counted as if you are the same person. You are now at 3RR, and I'm only at 2 reverts. I strongly recommend that you stop reverting the necessary improvements to the article and discuss the matter. Any further reverts on your part and I will seek to have both your IP address and your account blocked. I've already told you in 3 places that I'm happy to discuss the negotiable matters, but I am not going to discuss the possibility of re-adding unsourced, poorly sourced, non-neutral material to the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Qwyrxian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Got it, and watching appropriately. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

source content deletion is vandalism

I cannot accept ur edits, ur r reverting content which is sourced, u have reverted history of the cinema of andhra pradesh, which is not acceptable, u have reverted info on films like viswamohini, raithu bidda which is not acceptable, if u continue this disruption and vandalism i will report u to admin, this is my last warning to u 14.139.95.98 (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

contd:

as per ur guidance, I have shortened the info section, I am coming to mutual discussion with u. You cannot delete well sourced content in an article. please allow other editors to correct the content. you cannot delete whole content, ur vandalism is not acceptable.

Explain where u disagree the content, stop ur disruptive edits and content deletion 14.139.95.98 (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

moved content to history section

I have moved content to history section, kindly allow time to correct the content related to sources. I agree with u on not extending intro section, but u don't own Wikipedia, and u cannot go on with ur point of view. stop ur non sense and allow for mutual solution through discussion, and stop abusing fellow editors as vandals. 14.139.95.98 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

my user login

I am unable to login with my username, as I forgot my password.

I agree with u on cinema of Andhra. However, I have moved content to history section, kindly allow time to correct the content related to sources. I agree with u on not extending intro section, but u don't own Wikipedia, and u cannot go on with ur point of view. stop ur non sense and allow for mutual solution through discussion, you stop conspiring with fellow editors and check references.

Removing well sourced content is called disruptive edit, If u have problem with content, correct the unsouced content do not remove references and sourced content 14.139.95.98 (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

questions

1. why ru deleting information on east india film company, sati savitri???

2. why ru deleting information related to 1938 and 1941 in history of telugu cinema??

3. why ru trying to emphasize irrelavant info in the intro section???

4. who ru to block me 14.139.95.98 (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's have this conversation, politely, on the article talk page, after your block expires. It seems senseless to get into details now when you're going to be unable to respond soon. After you come back, please join the thread I already started on Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh, ask the questions politely, and I will be happy to explain each point. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

the second para of my version

in intro section is well sourced, and why ru deleting it???, u will be blcoked soon for ur vandalism, if u dont stop this nonsense 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

ur conspiring with other editors to block me, ur deleting well documented and sourced content, and I should discuss with u???

I WANT TO KNOW WHY RU DELETING WELL SOURCED CONTENT, PUBLISHED BOOK SOURCES WHY RU DELETING??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

u have disobeyed 3RR and u will be blocked, not me

I am going to discuss with u, only if I am not blocked. I will not allow ur vandalism of deleting references. 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

who ru to block me on content dispute hat u have with me 14.139.95.98 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't start a new section every time you want to add a sentence. As for the above, I'm not going to block you, another admin will. As for the details, I'll just mention two things: one, as I said before, calling good faith edits vandalism is a personal attack, and you need to stop that. Two, just because content is sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. I can verify thousands, hundreds of thousands of statements about Telugu movies. I could verify the name of every actors who's ever been in a Telugu movie, every movie ever made, reviews of those movies, etc. The article could, if we wanted, be thousands of pages long. Obviously that's a bad idea. The point is that that article needs to be an overview of the entire industry and it's 80 year history. That means we have to be selective about what details we include. Should we discuss and come to a consensus about what to include? Absolutely, and I look forward to doing so after you are blocked for edit warring, but only if you discuss the matter politely and don't keep reverting in the meanwhile. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)