User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Other Clan Names of Pal-Kshatriya

Please see my Edits and comments at Qwyrxian/Pal-kshatriya page regarding Pal-Kshatriya.

--Jalaj Singh 09:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am going to get to this soon, I promise--almost certainly in about 12-16 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

From Soopman11

Hey I'm that "pragmatic criticism of anarchism", basically, I decided to erase that section simple because it was off topic, why could a pragmatic criticism of anarchism article need writings defending all criticism of anarchism. That was just an article intent to list the objective critique of the philosophy since its a long topic, how would re-posting defenses against the criticism, which were already listed in the main topic that showed the reason why anarchists had their values. The main topic was explicitly clear that anarchists believe that centralized power is bad, but the critique to that perspective was the elimination of a consistent impartial standard would lead to inconsistency in justice where monetary power has the capability of swaying justice. Though that point of view was missing references which I accepted so it was taken down however the off topic information was still in place so I had to delete it since its better to have no information as compared to bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soopman11 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the anarchism issue. What I warned you for was putting a message on another user's userpage. Maybe that was an error on your part as a new user, but you should basically never edit another user's userpage--use their talk page instead. Furthermore, your message was very close to being a personal attack, which is not allowed per WP:NPA. It's fine to have disagreements on Wikipedia, but when we do, we do so civilly and patiently. If you want to discuss the article issue further, go to the article's talk page and raise the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok noted, which third party do I have to see if I believe that somebody is being unreasonable?

Before you seek a third party, you need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you feel like you're not getting anywhere, and it's just 2 people talking, then you can request a Third opinion. If it's a bigger discussion, try an request for comment. There are other, specific places, depending on what the problem is, but those are two good general ways to go. But the most important thing is that, no matter where you go, you must try to discuss the issue with the other party first. Let me know if you need further help in getting those processes rolling. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	first reasonable person I've met Soopman11 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Another requested edit to go over

WWB Too has a proposed draft up as a complete rewrite for the article Penn, Schoen & Berland. The talk page section for the draft is here. The draft itself can be found at User:WWB Too/Penn Schoen Berland. The one is probably gonna need a histmerge at the end. If you can look over it when you have time, i'd appreciate it. Thanks. Silverseren^C 01:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how else to contact you

Somebody is erasing the edits which I had put that were reasonable in that criticism of anarchy page but then people who are biased against it are ruining my edits because they don't like them and I've even stating the fact that there are no actual "pragmatic criticism" on the page. What do I do, how can I find an unbiased third party guy? Soopman11 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason that they are erasing the edits is because you aren't providing any reliable sources to support the claims you want to add. This is a very important part of Wikipedia--information must be based on what real world, reliable sources have already said. You included a "reference", but it's a reference to Wikipedia itself, which is never a reliable source. It may help you to read some of the pages on our basic policies; specifically, I recommend WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS for the current concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... and WP:CIRCULAR is pretty specific. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

hello...whew this is so challenging to get these WIKI rules straight. You asked about external links to verify THE WIN AWARDS and WOMEN'S IMAGE NETWORK so we can stop being blacklisted, blocked and removed. I have seen at least ten external links on the win awards DOT com website UNDER news section...but if I paste them here I cannot save this page...since one of these links has been blacklisted...

can you please advise what to do? thanks.. (GingerMomma12 (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

The sites were blacklisted because you were adding them to so many different articles, they did not appear to be reliable sources or valid external links. And the ones being blacklisted won't help the current problem, because the WIN site itself is not an independent reliable source. Before we do anything else w.r.t. WIN, we need evidence to demonstrate that someone independent of the group has talked about the awards or the Network in detail. Do you know of such references? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pal-Kshatriya, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mahratta and Nayak (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) 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila

Having multiple names that have been randomly published by local news papers will only create more ambiguity. Cossde (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

THat's life. YOu can't exclude reliably sourced info because it creates ambiguity. Another way of putting it is that if the name is ambiguous in real life sources, then it must be ambiguous on WP, too. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A government school can not have a name that is ambiguous in real life. Given at this school has a original Sinhala name it could be translated into English in multiple ways depending on the translator creating ambiguity in the process, even in RS. This is much like the Mokusatsu indecent. Therefore what we are doing by furthering this is making it ambiguous on WP. Or maybe that is the actual aim of these socks in the first place to create ambiguity by creating an article for any and every school sounding similar to Royal College ! Cossde (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. It can definitely have a name that is ambiguous in real life. If different RS use different names, our article must, absolutely, without exception include those various names. This is at the very heart of what Wikipedia does--we are not here to decide the "truth"; we are only here to say what reliable sources say is truth...and in cases where they disagree, we report that disagreement. There are no exceptions to this, and if you can't handle that, then we have a much bigger problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, its not my problem if you are incapable or unwilling to understand the "truth" in this situation. And I do not blame you for it as you for (try not to find this offensive, as don't mean it that way), a non-Sri Lankan you may not be able to grasp the ground reality which is very much different from the "prefect" environment of WP. If you were to read article from what you may call an RS, you would see how schools are represent (not listed) comparatively in context rather than in individual articles out of contex Cossde (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I may have miswritten above. My real point is that truth has absoluely nothign to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't here to decide the "right" answer, about anything. We are hear to report on reliable sources. That is the beginning, middle, and end of Wikipedia. And the fact that you don't agree with that makes me a bit sorry that I've been inherently defending your position on these articles. The article you linked to doesn't work; could you check the url again? I'll be happy to read it, but I'm growing very worried. You may want to respond to the ANI, as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, perhaps what I trying to say here maybe coming out wrong. I have already replayed to ANI based on the a replay I made to Xe2oner in the talk page of Royal College, Colombo. It funny how all these other articles come and end up here. There I have explain exactly why we can not rely on the RS on these topics. Pls try these urls [1], [2]. Note that the word Rajakeeya is Sinhala for Royal and that is the word used to refer to Wayamba Rajakeeya PV, Kurunegala (Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala‎), Rajakeeya V, Horana (Horana Royal College), Rajakeeya MMV, New Town Polonnaruwa (Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya). Here V stands for Vidyalaya (College), P for Prathmica (elementary) and MMV for Madya Maha Vidyalaya (Central College).Cossde (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. You've just stated explicitly what I was afraid of: that we cannot rely on reliable sources. This proves what I've thought for a long time--you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia always, always, always relies on reliable sources. There is no exception to this. If the president of the school called me up tomorrow and told me the name, I would still have to use what reliable sources say. That's simply all there is too it. Note that this is true in cases as simple as this one, or as complex as where two different countries are arguing about who owns some place--we don't decide the right answer, we simply decide what the sources say. We go with the majority for the main name and article title, but we clearly state the other names in the text (usually in the lead, sometimes in a separate "Naming" section). I think that I may have to ask for some form of sanctions be placed against you, because your insistence that we should not follow RS is damaging to the encyclopedia and cannot be allowed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Im not saying don't use RS, use RS by all means as I agree with you on Wikipedia should be based on RS and not primary sources! But in this case what I am saying is that the RS in this case the local paper are not reliable (which I see you agree on) in this matter as they are not consistent. We should look for alternative RS that are consistent that is why I used BBC to ref the name of Royal College, Colombo instead of the local news papers. I should say that in this situation your attitude of being a beat-cop is doing more damage to encyclopedia than my insistence on using RS that are consistent (in terms of naming) and thereby bring about a certain level of accuracy to the articles on WP. Cossde (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A local mainstream newspaper is going to be reliable for the name of a local school. If the newspaper uses two or more names for the same school then we should show that. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, in that case propose the use of a naming section where the alternative names are listed per their sources. This would clear an ambiguity. Let me do such a section on this article. Cossde (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

We discourage the use of extremely short sections, and it is likely that any section regarding alternate names would be so. More commonly, we adopt a format such as:

Name of school per article title (also known as ABC^[1] or XYZ^[2]) ...

where the first name is that used in the article title and is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the translations and multiple names involved it would be more clear to have a section as I create. Cossde (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at what you did and am unconvinced: it was repetitive, poorly phrased, had various problems with format/guidelines, and was pedantic regarding an obvious newspaper copyediting issue. After resolving those points, we seem to be left pretty much with a list of names ... which could just as well be shown in the more usual manner that I refer to above. I am not sure why it is you are being so resistant to the naming issue but burying it as you did is not appropriate even though I appreciate the attempt at compromise. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Poll

I have just remembered that I didn't vote yet. Am I not allowed, as per your message? A reply on my talk page would be good. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The schools

I'm actually really happy to see another registered editor challenging Cossde's claims. If Xe2oner presents good arguments based on good sources, we may actually see the articles become more credible. What do you make of all this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's good news. The big problem is that all of the editors before were uncivil (flinging insults at Cossde), socking/IP hopping, and just reverting w/o references. I, of course, simply don't care what the schools are called--I just want the edit warring to stop. I really really hope someone actually responds at WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll drop them both a line encouraging good conduct. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Both blocked for 31h. Definitely deserved in one case; perhaps less so in the other. Still, if it gives them both time to cool off and reconsider, and it gives everyone else a respite from the disruption, then it is A Good Thing. One common thing about Indic-article obsessive wikilawyers is that they usually trip themselves up eventually. I've no idea if this applies elsewhere on WP but rather suspect that it does. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, amd I've raised an issue from SPI at User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Cossde. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Odeon Cinemas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Odeon Cinemas. 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) 18:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

= What is your nationality?

So what are you? if you're not Chinese then why do you edit Korean related article with Chinese POV ? --KSentry(talk) 13:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a Chinese POV? Let me tell you, the editors at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute would probably disagree with you pretty strongly. In any event, if two different sides think I'm on wildly different POVs, then I must be doing something right. Because, ultimately, I'm on a really weird POV--the one that say Wikipedia should strive to be as neutral as possible.

But would you mind telling me which edits of mine you think were POV? I may well have made a mistake, or it may simply be that something I did could be further improved. If you'd like to discuss my edits rather than me personally, I'd be happy to oblige. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I found two possibilities--either you're still upset that I blocked you for 2 days about 1 year ago, because you were edit warring to keep in the contributions of a banned user, or you're upset that I reverted you back in February because you were removing sourced info on articles without discussing the matter, edit warring against several other editors to do so. Either one is a violation of our rules, so I'm sorry that you disagree. But if you're back now, and you want to resume editing Wikipedia, I strongly recommend that you read our policy forbidding edit warring and our policy requiring that Wikipedia be neutral. I will tell you, I don't know the first thing about Goguryeo, but I do know that you can't just remove sourced info with a vague claim that it's biased. If you still think there's a problem with that content, go to Talk:Goguryeo and discuss why those sources aren't reliable (i.e., don't meet WP:RS), and what reliable sources you think should be put in their place. You can't just assert that sourced info is wrong, you have to actually explain and discuss the matter (i.e., collaborate with other editors to build a consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

lol, I chuckled a bit whilst reading this. Don't worry, you're not alone, I've been accused by verious parties of being pro-Taiwan independence, pro-Chinese Communist Party, pro-Japan, anti-Japan, anti-Korean, a Vietnamese, and a Korean. The funniest I think was when reading a post on 2channel where someone claimed that I was "a Korean mascarading as a Chinese from Australia", because I did something on the Liancourt Rocks article 3 or 4 years ago that I don't even remember. The truth is, I'm actually a Rhodesian living in an Antarctic base. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Following up on Penn Schoen Berland

Hi there, Qwyrxian. A few days ago Silverseren posted a brief note on this page asking if you'd consider histmerging a new draft article that I've prepared on behalf of Penn Schoen Berland, and which he had read and given thumbs up to. I figured it couldn't hurt to reach out myself; you can find my draft at User:WWB Too/Penn Schoen Berland, and my full explanation on the PSB Talk page. Let us know if you can take a look sometime soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of artistic works

Personally I would like to see just that, at least one paragraph that provides an artistic context to the work, instead of a dry plot description, eg, this happened, then this happened etc. See the third paragraph down for an example of what I mean. The Matrix Dgharmon (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you have to find a reliable source that makes the analysis. This is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental rules--no original research. I know this may sound strange to a new user, but we just cannot describe the artistic context of a work based on our own analysis. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

PSB reply

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 13:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Enterprise search engine list revert

You reverted my edit in the enterprise section with the reason that "link to a company, not a search engine; engine itself must have article ot be listed here". That is not very consistent with the previous entries in the list. In the same list, all but 4 of the links goes to company pages, including the following: AskMeNow, Concept Searching Limited, Coveo, Dieselpoint, dtSearch, Endeca,Exalead, Expert System S.p.A., Fast Search & Transfer, IBM, Inbenta, ISYS Search Software, Microsoft, Northern Light, Oracle Corporation,SAP, Vivisimo, X1 Technologies and ZyLAB Technologies .

I can not see how Thunderstone and Searchdaimon should differ from the list above.... Runarb (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that they shouldn't. I only happened to check the two you provided, since they are new, but since you say the others are also to companies, I'll remove them, too. Thanks for letting me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure deleting all thus entries is the best way of handling this?

In the search engine field there are many small company that only creates a single search product. There is often hard to distinct between the product and the company, so it has been very common to refer to there search engine with the vendor name. People talk about Autonomy, Fast Search & Transfer and Coveo even when they mean IDOL, Fast ESP or Coveo for Enterprise Content, witch are the names for the search engines it self.

Same goes for general internet search engines Baidu, Blekko, Yandex and WireDoo. All links to company pages.

And what about Isearch, Lemur, Lucene, SWISH-E, Xapian? Thus are not search engines either, but open source software library for doing information retrieval (the underlying science in a search engine).

May I suggest that we continues to list search engines if there company have a Wikipedia entry. Ideally we should list it in the format "*[ [company name ] ]:search engine name" if company and search engine name is't the same (like in Blekko).

Runarb (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, for me, the page is, literally, only a list of "search engines", so I don't see how we can include companies. If the engine itself isn't notable, I don't think it should be on the list. However, I do know that I am very much on the strict end of how we interpret what can and cannot go onto stand-alone lists, so I could be wrong. Let me open up a discussion on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Empower Network (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alexa

Vanniyar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchables

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

An SPI FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xe2oner. - Sitush (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Pronouns

xyr and he don't go together.[3]. I've always found your posts to be harder to read than those of other editors due to the use of gender neutral pronouns not in widespread use; it's easier to follow if usage is consistent. Nobody Ent 00:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, I should be more careful. I try to use the gender neutral pronouns, but I sometimes fall into "he" when I'm talking about a vandal or abuser, since odds are quite high such person is male. But I should be consistent. I know that the pronouns confuses people, but I can't figure out what else to do. Switching to slashed versions is easy for "s/he", but irritating for "her/him". Off wiki, I generally just use "she" and "her" as a gender neutral pronoun, or I swap back and forth ("he" one paragraph, "she" the next). I don't like using "they", because that actually confuses the hell out of me, especially since we have a tendency to switch rapidly between talking about one and more than one person. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no good solutions. Read a book by Kate Swift years ago and decided for myself the singular they was the best option. But understand the logic of your approach. Nobody Ent 11:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I use the Singular they/them/their - a lot of people dislike it, but if it was good enough for Shakespeare... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda

I'm considering, taking the numbering dispute to DRN. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Having read Mewulwe's response at the article & at his talkpage, DRN (which falls on him to start) would likely be a waste of time. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Awarding you this barnstar for your clean up work in Gurjant_Singh_Budhsinghwala article. Way to go.... Cheers! -- Shrikanthv (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring

[4] Could you please stop revert-warring other editor's contributions without discussing it first? That edit violated no policy (NPOV, BLP, SYNTH, etc), so it would not have hurt for it to remain in place while you started a discussion on the talk page saying why you disagreed with including it. If I was that editor, I would be very irritated and frustrated that my attempt to improve and expand the article was so curtly dismissed. Your idea of what the article should include may be supported by the majority, or it may not be, but you don't know unless you open it for discussion. Deciding article content by exchanges of revert warring is not the way to do things. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not revert warring, it's WP:BRD. WCIDFS boldly added new content. I felt it did not belong in the article, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS (that is, I feel that it did violate policy). I reverted, with that explanation. It's now up to that editor to open discussion on the talk page--or, up to you, if you want. Your suggestion makes no sense, as it implies that any edit which doesn't blatantly violate a policy must automatically stay in the article until after discussion, when in fact the exact opposite is true--new additions must be justified in any case that another editor objects. So, I must state that I won't stop editing according to both policy and standard Wikipedia editing practices. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How many editors are going to want to take the time to add material to an article if, as you state, the default mechanism in Wikipedia is to revert-war it out if another editor simply disagrees with the addition? You realize that that attitude implies that revert-warring is an acceptable mechanism for managing Wikipedia article content? It should be the other way around. And yes, reverting properly sourced material without discussion is revert warring, even if it's only a single revert. In my opinion, one reason WP has such a problem with editor retention is because so many articles in WP are almost uneditable, or at least, difficult to edit, exactly because the regulars in those articles take the attitude that you are taking. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not revert warring. I reverted material once. And, in my opinion, the reason WP has a problem with editor retention is that we place too much emphasis on not hurting the feelings of new editors and expect long term editors to bend over backwards to the detriment of the actual articles themselves. That edit by WCIDFS clearly and definitely made the article worse, for violating at least 2 policies. In some cases, when I see a new editor making edits of that type, I take the time to discuss the issue with them on their talk page...but it's a matter of the time, type of edit, etc....but I will say I do it far more than the average editor (including, for example, giving a lot of detailed explanations when I take admin actions like deleting pages and blocking people). Could I have done that for WCIDFS? Possibly. I'll go ahead and do it now. But even though I'm going to leave the explanation, that still means the revert was correct. We should never, under any circumstances, allow a policy-violating edit to remain on a page simply because the other editor is new. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(in reply to your message left on my talkpage) I do not think my edit was a violation, since the incident, absence of PBOC President from IMF annual meetings is very unusual as one of representatives from central banks of participating nations, and solely due to Senkaku issues, since the meetings are being held in Tokyo. And even Christine Lagarde, Chief of IMF condemned it saying that they will “lose out” by not attending.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it's important now, just because it's current news. 1 year from now, Japan isn't going to say "Well, last year when you pulled your top official out of the IMF..." This is not important to the long term dispute; in fact, it's just a minor consequence to the dispute. It's only being put in now because it made the news now. But, if you think I'm wrong, bring up on the article's talk page and see if there's a consensus to include. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Five pillars. 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) 18:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Article "Nair"". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

The rabbi has been placed under house arrest. It is all over the Israeli papers this morning. Why did you delete it? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Because no sources were provided that say that. If you have the full text of a source that says that, feel free to re-add it with the reference. But don't put it in the lead (that would grossly violate WP:NPOV); it would go into some later section. The real reason I reverted is that the IP who added the info took the excuse to add in a bunch of other BLP violating information--about the arrest of an aide, calling him "controversial", etc. This IP is the latest incarnation of a long running disruptive editor who's only goal is to make Pinto look bad. Now, we should report the facts of the arrest, but we need to still do it neutrally and matching WP:BLP. For example, if he was arrested but soon released with no charges filed, we should probably not report it at all. But, again, let us know the sources, and we can figure out where to go from there. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The rabbi is a well-know character in Israel and the New York area. He has had several strange mentions in the media. That being said, I add "Israeli religious figures" to "Pre-war French Politics" on my list of things I do not know enough about to edit. Thank you for your kind reply. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please don't feel like you did anything wrong--I wasn't reverting you, but, rather, the IP editor who had edited just before you. THe problem is that this article has been the target of a long-running campaign to say every negative thing possible about Pinto, the vast majority of which has been blatant WP:BLP violations (either because it was unsourced, or undersourced, or really had nothing to do with Pinto at all). The IP editor used some of the exact same info and phrasing as the long-term disruptive editor did, thus reverting the whole thing was necessary. In the case of someone being arrested/accused of a crime, it's worth it for us to take the time to get the info right--while the news media should chase down every lead and speculation, WP:BLP says we have to get it right from the very beginning, which means that we need to err on the side of caution. I note that you've added a source to the article's talk page; I'm off to bed very shortly, but if no one else has looked into it by tomorrow, I'll definitely look into it. Being under house arrest is definitely something that should be in the article...I just wanted to be safe until I heard from someone reliable (which you seem to be) with reliable sources (which I think you've provided) before jumping the gun. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Without discussion

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Cossde's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Empower Network for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Empower Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empower Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ubelowme _U ^Me 19:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RE:Demigodz

Hi, I changed the words of the article, and put it into my own words, I believe the article was all copy-edited. Want to know what was the main reason for it being deleted, as the website I have gathered it from is also a 'wiki'. If you could tell me what was the main part that was copied, I could edit it. Thanks. JoyRider (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You changed a few words here and there, keeping the entire structure of the article the same. In any event, you still need to meet the problems shown in the last AfD, which is that there was not sufficient evidence that the band was notable. If you want, you can work on it in a sandbox in your userspace. If you do so, 'do not start from that other wiki: instead, start from reliable sources independent of the band that discuss them in detail. If there is no such information in reliable sources, then we can't have an article on them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see DemiGodz, which I've just tagged as a repost. You might want to salt that spelling too, if you feel it appropriate. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Got it. And user about to be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh

Hi. With regard to this edit of yours, can you please comment at User talk:Jeff G.#Jagjit_Singh? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

how do we edit

how do we edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.245.206 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Ethics_of_circumcision#Content_proposed_for_deletion.
Message added 03:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Qwyrxian, as promised I wrote up the WP:P&G-based reasons why I think the Ethics of circumcision article would be improved by removing the content mentioned. I'm interested in your input. Zad68 03:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I glanced at what you wrote, and it is very extensive: wow! I don't have the time to review in detail, but I will definitely comment w/in the next day or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I actually did not write that much, so it may be quicker to review than you think. What you are looking at in the big section in the middle is a long list of bullet-pointed content pulled from the article, all having the same problem. On a related note, as I'm doing research into this area, I'm getting the feeling that Ethics of circumcision and Circumcision controversies should probably be merged, as it's appearing that there really isn't a significant enough difference in the kind of content that would be in each article to support having two separate articles. Interested in your thoughts on that. Zad68 15:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

edit

we want to contribute . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.245.206 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would you like help with? To edit, all you have to do is go to any article that isn't protected and click the edit button above and to the right of the article. Is there some specific article you want to edit but can't?Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

units of length, i place the unit like yoctoparsec, it is not accepted, wanted to contribute the units that i know. 219.74.247.76 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because there is no such thing. You have two choices right now: tell me exactly what article you're talking about, and exactly what change you want made, along with any reliable sources needed to support that edit, or if, as I suspect, this is just trolling, you can go find somewhere else to have fun. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Mercy Ministries

Hi Q.

Thank you for your recent messages on my talk page.

Is there a way to email or send you a private message? Or is that not a feature of Wikipedia?

Kind regards,

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissSherryBobbins (talk • contribs) 09:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, email is possible. First, you have to register an email address with Wikipedia. You can do that by going to "My preferences" (top right of any page on en.wikipedia), and scroll to the bottom to "Email options". Then check "Enable email from other users". Once that's done, come back to my talk page. On the left margin, you should see (under the logo) three sections: "Navigation", "Interaction", and "Toolbox". Open the Toolbox section if it isn't already open. There will then be an option to "Email this user".

Having said all of that, even if you email me, there is a good chance I will reply to you on wiki. Unless you send private information, if what you want to discuss is improving the MM page, then its much better to have that discussion on the MM talk page. This allows all editors to see and discuss it, which is how Wikipedia works. But I can still review what you have to say by email if that's more comfortable for you.

One final note, which I hope will point out what we need to do on that page: Wikipedia requires that all information be backed up by reliable sources. We cannot use blogs, personal letters/stories, self-published websites, etc., to try to make some sort of case against MM. This is true even if you personally know/believe that they do bad things. We even have a page that explains that Wikipedia is not the place to right Great Wrongs. Our only mission is to re-report what reliable sources have said. If reliable sources have not discussed the controversies about the Ministries, we simply cannot publish them ourselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Q.

Thanks for directing me to this information. As you can probably tell, I am a bit new to all of this and am learning as I go.

I read the article you directed me to, thanks for that, it is good to understand the policies at Wikipedia.

I will email you shortly.

Thanks and regards,

MissSherryBobbins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissSherryBobbins (talk • contribs) 08:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto

I've done a thorough NPOV revision of the article, checking all sources for accuracy and adding info I found along the way. If you have time please have a look and make any additional changes you see fit. I've also left some comments on the talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Women's Image Network Awards

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Noozgroop and MOS:NUMBERS

Hello and sorry to bother you. I reverted an edit today from Noozgroop (talk · contribs) where he changed a written number to a numeral without giving a reason. After looking through his talk page, and several ANIs, I realized that this is not just an isolated case, but a real problem. I also noticed that you have been involved in some of the discussions and blocks. Well, s/he is up to it again. In the past five days: [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]. I just thought you should know. Thanks for you time. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've blocked Noozgroop indefinitely. S/he either refuses to change or simply doesn't understand the rules; I don't know which, but either way, this is exactly the reason we have an MOS--so that we don't have to fight over these types of changes all the time. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, much appreciated! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust

Hi. I have created Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust which has large number of hits due to some alleged controversy reported. But the article needs some urgent copy edit, as the subject is related to alleged controversy and lot of people are reading it. Can you kindly have glance at the article? Thank you.-Rayabhari (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I started to do it, but was edit conflicting with Sitush. I'll let him finish up for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll probably make a better job of it than me, I am concerned re: WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maattrraan - why this strict protection?

I see you have protected the page Maattrraan, and its expiry date also seems long away. But you have done it in such a way, that only admins can edit it. Why don't u use the time to improve the article by correcting the lead section and adding more about the films' box office report? I can't do it, because I'm not an admin. Pls reply on my talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Nadia Khan Show Merger Proposal

Hi, I've proposed it to be merged it to Geo TV as it used to be aired on it. I have also proposed for it to be merged to Nadia Khan, since the encyclopedic article Nadia Khan Show does not meet standards as it has been written by a co-worker of Ms. Nadia Khan and show is no more notable now. So, I think it should either be merged to Geo TV or Nadia Khan. --S.M.Samee (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I suspected. You're actually misunderstanding what "notability" means on Wikipedia. First of all, who wrote the article is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not the subject is notable. Second, notability is not temporary--that is, it's impossible to say "it is no more notable now". As long as it was once notable, then it has met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While we don't have a special notability guideline for television shows like we do for films (WP:NFILM), pretty much if a show has appeared on a national television network, it's sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. In this case, the show is certainly notable, since it received several awards and was very highly rated in Pakistan.

Since the merger suggestion was the result of misunderstanding our policy, I'm going to go ahead and remove the merger tags. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'll wait for you to respond here or on the article's talk page before removing the tags. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. But I wanna tell you Nadia Khan has received awards and not the show itself. Also, all the references are approximately unverified. If verified, they're primary sources. Anyhow, I just wanted to get it merged to Geo TV or Nadia Khan, the latter option was better.--S.M.Samee (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ref. NADIA KHAN

Hi, I've checked you've undone my revision at Nadia Khan regarding her name in Hindi only. I was right as Hindi is not relevant there but I still didn't remove it but rectified the mistake. Hindi is not the language of Pakistan and I think a Pakistan Wikipedian might have used Google Translate to translate the word Nadia Khan in Hindi but that's wrong. Previously, it was खाननदिया read as Khannadiya but the correct is that which you undid i.e. नादिया ख़ान. Please do consider. --S.M.Samee (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies--I wasn't actually undoing your edit, it was because in between my last edit and yours, another editor (one of the show employees) had reverted back to an unacceptable version of the article. There was no easy way for me to just revert the bad edit and leave yours. I've now gone back and removed the Hindi, because I believe you are correct that it has no validity on the article. You're right that we don't just randomly put other language transliterations/translations on people's names; Urdu is reasonable since that's (presumably) her native language (though if I'm wrong there, please remove that, too). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hey Qwyrxian, do you think you might have time to get to this today? I'd prefer not to have the edit held up if there is no objection. Thanks... Zad68 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've responded there. Sorry for the delay.

Cheers, looking now. Zad68 03:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Response for you at Talk:Ethics_of_circumcision#Content_proposed_for_deletion. Zad68 04:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

India Maps issue (User:Akkiiey)

So let me tell you the allegations i made are so strong that i can file a suit on ban of wikipedia in my country by a filling a suit to Supreme court ! . that is why i request to change the border line of INDIA by rechecking your sources . or tell me hoe to give you source i will provide you with some strong proofs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.156.18 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's about the legal threat on your talk page.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User with long history of Vandalizing, still doing so

User_talk:174.55.0.78 His talk page speaks for itself, and a block will probably be required here. NECRAT^{Plates On} 00:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 months. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hats off to you... and thank you

Well! I was watching the debate on tv (and cheering) and the Yankees game on the computer (and moaning) and came back here to quite an enjoyable read! I appreciate your spirited defense very much, and of course completely agree with everything that you said. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths some people will go to make their feeble points - oh wait, actually I'm not surprised at all. Kinda reinforced my point, dontcha think? Thanks, truly. Tvoz/talk 04:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one of the things that makes me most angry is when an argument itself encapsulates everything that is wrong with the person's stance in the first place. Rather than try to take the consensus-building, lets-all-be-friends approach (the one that those supporting feminism are pushed into), I felt that a bit of righteous anger would be better. Have you by chance seen Julia Gillard's response to the opposition party when they tried to accuse her of sexism/misogyny on some minor scandal despite years of their own outrageous prejudicial statements? I don't know anything about Australian politics, but the way she nails the opposition...it's stirring. If you search for "Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist" on Youtube you should find it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

One moment please... Let me go to my house to put on a hat so I can take it off. ;) This comment is precious, and gives words to something I've always felt here, but didn't know how to explain. You hit the nail on the head. I hope we can change things here. Thanks for your words! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 09:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Supporting feminism does not mean spreading idiotic stereotypes about males. "An overabundance of testosterone" could be translated into "there are too many men on Wikipedia", which either means 1) We should recruit more women or 2) We should reduce the amount of men. Either way, saying Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for woman does not accomplish #1 and I can only assume #2 is not a realistic option for most. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• To illustrate the point further, I think some of Tvoz's actions at the Beatles mediation were less than 100% honest, e.g. breaching the "context solution" two hours after the poll went live, after having completely ignored the issue (which I breached for discussion during mediation) for more than two months during the mediaition and poll draft phase. That was a dishonest attempt to derail the building consensus for "the", IMO. I thought it was quite dishonest, but it never even occurred to me that Tvoz did this because, lacking high-levels of testosterone, her ability to be honest is not as acute as mine, per the scientific research cited here: "More Testosterone, Less Deceit?" ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• In this diff Tvoz implies that lower-case editors, perhaps especially myself, are to blame for driving her away from the mediation and Beatles articles in general. The problem is, Tvoz has made 33 career edits to the Beatles as of 17 October 2012, and my first edit to the Beatles was in February 2011. Since my first edit to the Beatles, Tvoz has made a total of 3 edits to the article, all of them were just last week, on 10 October. So who drove her away from the Beatles? Is she rightfully blaming me and others? And what was that again about "laying blame ... {is} a masculinist attitude rooted in patriarchal ways of conversing"? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You are heading into i-ban territory by following Tvoz around and annoying her. Cut it out. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to address the Beatles issue here, but I am going to assume, just this once, that you really are misunderstanding Tvoz's comments as radically as you portray here. Apologies if this takes a bit of text, but you brought this to my user page. You don't have to read what I'm here to say, but I'm going to try to explain, as clearly as I can without actually publishing a dissertation, what I see operating here.

First of all, Tvoz did not blame the problem on an overabundance of men (though, as I'll show, that is part of the background here). She blamed it on "an overabundance of testosterone running around all of the pages". Your first error, if it is, in fact, an error, is in presuming that when she said "testosterone" she literally meant the steroid "testosterone", and, by extension men. I, and I think most others, don't actually read it that way. I read Tvoz's statement as saying "an overabundance of masculinist behaviors". Furthermore, note that when I say "masculinist", I also don't mean "what men do", but, rather, a way of interacting with other human beings that is primarily defined through contest, competition (as opposed to cooperation), argument, the need to win (as compared to the need to connect), dominance and dominance displays, establishment of hierarchies, etc. This is what you might call a "term of art" in feminist rhetoric.

Now, it is not a coincidence that "masculinist" is closely related to "being male". That's because another way of describing "masculinism" is "the way that men have a tendency to act due to biological drives and socialization". And, I should mention, that most feminists (I think, here I'm less certain) believe that "masculinism" is far far far far far more a product of socialization than it is a product of biology. In other words, even though these behaviors are somewhat "caused" by the relatively greater amount of the steroid testosterone in biological males, they're much more the result of the socialization process that biological men (usually) undergo, from before they can even talk, which is radically different from the socialization process that biological women (usually) undergo. Men, in the US, Europe, and some of the other English speaking ex-European colonies, are generally taught that it is "natural" for them to compete and, through successful competition, establish themselves as "the big man", "the top dog". They are usually asked (openly and covertly) to suppress emotions, because said emotions can interfere with the "important task" of achieving success. On the other hand, on average, women in these same countries are generally taught that cooperation (especially amongst women) is the desirable approach; they are taught that it is "natural" for them to value social bonds over social dominance, they are funneled into activities rewarding group success rather than individual success, they are told that they are better at fields requiring socialization than those requiring analytics (say, nursing vs. doctoring; or soft sciences vs. hard sciences). Now, of course, while I'm making broad generalizations here, I'm not trying, in any way, to eliminate the extraordinary complexity of social behaviors in these countries. No one would deny that Mean Girls is interesting because at its core it displays a form of ruthless female-female competition that many of us recognize as "true". But it's fairly easy to establish, through a thousand different measurements in numerous different life activities, that men tend to be trained to be "masculinist", while women tend to be trained to be "feminine".

One more minor sidetrack before I get back to the "overabundance" comment. What is the result of a masculinist way of thinking on an endeavor that operates primarily through written words, and that tends to have points about which people disagree? Well, it tends to result (we can see this historically by looking at trends in academic writing, and presently by looking at Wikipedia) in people using words to argue and fight. Masculinism tends to result in a world view where you perceive people in clear camps (as you yourself have said you view t/The Beatles debate), with the goal being for one's own side to win. In some cases, this will result in an "ends justifies the means" attitude, whereby whatever one can do within the formal rule structure to ensure winning. We see this all the time on Wikipedia, where some of our most experienced "operatives" take advantage of the very complex formal systems (everything that goes on in Wikipedia-space) to sideline, render powerless, or even remove their perceived enemies. Instead of seeking a consensus (i.e., openly discussing a subject until such time as we can get a substantial portion of the participants to agree on some wording/formatting/sourcing/whatever), the goal becomes to find a way to get one's own opinion/POV/wording/whatever into mainspace, by whatever means (mostly this works w/in Wikipedia's "rules", but, of course, as we know, often does not, as when people resort to sockpuppetry to votestack). In its most extreme form, masculinism makes Wikipedia an adversarial "pissing contest" (and note that I don't choose a metaphor that is so obviously male on accident) that drives away anyone who is unable to take the heat (often, we say "doesn't have a thick skin"). Those with the most determination, the most stamina, and the strongest desire to win are, quite often, the ones that do. In fact, we could even say that our longest running disputes are the ones where all sides have such an absolute need to win (usually because winning carries real-world consequences, as in P/I and Eastern European issues) that they always have willing "recruits" (more masculinist imagery here, as I evoke the battlefield) who will fight, fight, fight.

Okay, how does this tie back into Tvoz's comments? Well, for me, it has to do with the gendered history of the internet, its promises of "freedom", and what is has or hasn't delivered. Of course, the early internet was overwhelmingly male, simply because it was created during a time when men had not just a majority, but a nearly complete dominance of the engineering fields (and, of course, the early internet was closely linked to that most masculinist of entities, the military). These people created a "world" where, eventually, people could freely and easily communicate with all sorts of people they had never met, on pretty much any topic, and behind, in some cases, a thin veil of anonymity. We still have this structure on Wikipedia. At the same time, they, because of their own predilections, created an ethic that has often been metaphorically linked to the American Wild West--a free, lawless place where you could say whatever you wanted as long as you were prepared to back up your words with lead. Not coincidentally, the so-called Wiled West was also a place where women either stayed at home as the "good mother" or worked in/ran the local brothel. There is an abundance of evidence that shows that, despite the whole "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog" meme, the actual result was that in order to have "clout", one had to act in masculinist ways. You had to be willing to endure flaming on Usenet, sexist jokes on BBS's, and heavy anti-female stereotypes in online games. And speaking of the latter, now that people can more easily be identified as women (on social networking, but even more so in video gaming), many masculinist males openly mock, abuse, and degrade those who identify as female online. The internet promised freedom from gender stereotypes, but instead simply showed how easy it was for such stereotyped behavior to arise and, in many cases, become institutionalized.

That's what we have on Wikipedia. We have a place where theoretically users aren't gendered, even if some do self-identify with a biological sex. In many ways, Wikipedia is worse, because Wikipedia has a self-created rule system which, while espousing consensus building, actively rewards masculinist competition. I know this, and you know this, because we're both good at using that system for our own benefit. But on top of that Wikipedia has this competing ethos that says that you're not supposed to invoke the rule-system except for real "problems"; instead, you're just supposed to keep talking. Well, again, this rewards masculinism, because it rewards those who are so insistent upon winning with a forum in which they can outlast, out argue, and out badger those they disagree with. We often call this "civil POV pushing", and we recognize that it's bad, but we also recognize that it's extremely difficult to stop. Why is that? Because the entire system is built not to stop, but to encourage it. It's not a coincidence that the business field tends to reward masculinist aggression and competition--it's a way for those (usually men) who are already in power to ensure that they stay in power, because they're constantly defining "powerful" to mean "good at being masculinist". That's true here on Wikipedia, too.

Of course, there's a feedback loop here. Because Wikipedia's social, political, and legal structure tends to reward masculinism, that tends to drive away those who don't have those traits. And since it's much more common for men to be masculinist than women, the population tends to remain primarily biologically male. And, since our system is self-governing, the rules and culture both reinforce the masculinist behavior. Of course, this is certainly not universal--we have all sorts of editors who prefer a consensus building model...but we also have editors who openly and directly declare that if you can't handle argumentative discourse (including an insult now and then), then you don't belong here. It's not a surprise that [{WP:CIVIL]] is the least enforced of our pillars.

How do we solve this problem? Well, one way is, as you said, to recruit more women. If you don't agree with this goal, you're definitely out of step with both the community and the Foundation, the latter of which even spends money to directly reach out to potential female editors. I don't believe anyone has suggested decreasing the number of men, though there are a number of people who strongly believe we need to decrease the amount of masculinism. And, in the end, I think this is what Tvoz was getting at, and which I agree with--the encyclopedia would be a much much better place if we spent less time getting embroiled in arguments and spent more time in finding ways to compromise and work together. At the risk of bringing us back to Beatles issues, I was always disappointed that what seemed to me to be a sensible compromise--simply using "the band" in running text whenever possible--never had more than a tenuous success rate. There's all sorts of other similar debates. I can't cast too many stones, because I've been involved in my own masculinist debates on topics that, while I think they're important, probably seem inane to others. Would it be possible to build a social/legal structure on Wikipedia that discouraged pissing contests? I imagine so, but I don't, to be honest, know exactly how we would go about doing so other than through a more general change in individual behavior. And this doesn't even begin to touch upon the complexities brought about by the fact that we're now getting more and more editors from other cultures, for whom the standards for "civil behavior" may not align with the one we've self-defined (heck, in many cases, even the definition of "knowledge" isn't the same as we move across cultures...). But, ultimately, I like to hope that we can make that transition, even though it's not necessarily likely. At times I think this can be done through having more polite, more cooperative approaches on various issues, and, at times, I think it calls for what I above called my "righteous anger" to not let people get away with calling a desire for more equality as some sort of discrimination. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)