User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013. 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) 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, the following IPs / userIDs indulge in the same old pattern of disruptive editing (either complete blanking of sections or inserting unreferenced points into the Madurai_Nayak_Dynasty page): Naray_kakati, 199.190.46.69, and 70.39.186.75. Please check IPs, or warn or block them. Thanks. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

I've protected for a week, and added it to my watchlist. Next time, if it's the same users, I'll block them as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Q. --Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Your efforts

Thank you for your proposal to give me a second chance at ANI. Though I am Banned from editing Wikipedian Articles of religious nature,I just want to know that whether I can edit rest of other articles with out fear of being banned.I am also making a simple request to kindly watch those articles which I was editing for the sake of neutrality.I give you assurance that I was neither editing by any I.P nor will be editing any article through I.P.Msoamu (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You may edit any article on Wikipedia, so long as you do not edit about religion at all. You may not edit articles about religion, you may not edit the biographies of religious leaders, you may not edit articles about religious disputes. Similarly, you cannot edit parts of articles that are about religion. So, for example, you could edit Pakistan, but you can't edit the Demographics/Religion section of Pakistan. Note that this applies also to talk pages--you may not discuss religion (religious leaders, etc.) on talk pages, user talk pages, etc. Nothing about any religion, even vaguely, anywhere on Wikipedia, for six months. If you're not sure, don't edit it; you could ask an admin if you aren't sure, but the way "broadly construed" works means that anything that might possibly be covered, is. As recommended in the ban proposal, I suggest that you use this time to become more familiar with how to edit Wikipedia neutrally. I also suggest (as is stated in the ban proposal) that you find a mentor who can help you with this process. It's really hard for some editors, especially when they're editing something that they're passionate about.

One more suggestion: I recommend that you take all of those religious articles off of your watchlist. If you see them popping up every day, and you don't agree with the edits, you may be tempted to edit them, or recommend to someone else to edit them, or otherwise violate your ban. Just pretend that none of that stuff is on Wikipedia, get better at editing neutrally, and consider returning later. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Afds

Which musician is clearly notable to you cause i don't see it. Koala15 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok ill withdraw i guess i just didn't see the notability at the time. Koala15 (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:173.89.153.66 movie plot edits

You dealt with this editor previously... they seem to be at it again. Within only a few days of the last block expiration too! All of their edits seem to be of similar variety (rewriting plot summaries). Shadowjams (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked for 1 year. Sadly. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nana Patekar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at S.M.Samee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I could do with some input

Can you take a look at Talk:Bhagat_Singh#Religious_views when you have a minute, please? I am getting nowhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather that they self-reverted and will leave it a few hours to see what happens. This has been going on for months, on and off, but just maybe they'll understand more now that someone else has had a say. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone else reverted but it seems that things are now settling down. It's amazing what a difference another voice can make. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your thoughts on a matter, please?

On the List of Kim Possible characters article, User:Trivialist added a banner about the content. I went to his Talk page to ask him about it and requested he open a discussion on the article talk page. Instead he went to mine, where you can also find my response.

First: is User:Trivialist an admin? I have doubts. I'm not saying he is impersonating one, just that he comes off with the "feel" of one…. Second: what is your take on this issue of primary source as applied to a subject where the ONLY reliable source is the source itself? Unlike say, a discussion of the Sequester (2013) where there are abundantly multiple sources to cite apart from it?

As I stated, I feel this is a case of "follow the spirit" and not "follow the word" of this rule. Your input will be appreciated, thank you in advance. —Love Robin (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —Love Robin (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar - May 2013

Hi Qwyrxian, I'm Prabhu from India. I am from Vanniyar, a social group in South India. I have collected the information and i spend almost 2 weeks to search in internet and get information from our group people. So that i have edited Vanniyar page with reference to websites. This seems to unfair and making my work towards wikipedia as an invalid one. Please advice regarding this and can i edit vanniyar page or not with reliable sources with website references. Thank you!

Regards, Prabhu E

As a general rule, most websites do not meet our rules for reliable sources, which you can read at WP:RS. To be a reliable source, the site/publisher/news company/etc. has to have a history of high quality editorial oversight and fact checking. That usually means things like good newspapers (though not all of them), television news programs, academic journals, and books written by experts in their field published by good quality publishers (university presses are the best). I'm sorry that you did so much work, but we can't include information unless it can first be verified by reliable sources. Some of the information you included by definition could never be verified by a reliable source; for example, we would never say in Wikipedia's voice that " Vanniyars are people descended from Agni, the Vedic god of fire", since no one could verify such a claim as a fact. We could possibly say something like, "Vanniyar legend is that they are descended from Agni, the Vedic god of fire", but we would need a high quality source to verify that.

Please let me know if you have further questions. It can take a bit of effort to understand how reliable sources work, and I'm happy to help (though sometimes recently I've been a little slow, so I apologize if I don't answer immediately). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ouch!

Yes, my brain malfunctioned there, which is ironic because the vandalism seemed to be referring to Ambedkar's mental state. Sorry. - Sitush (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was a prescient stab at you...maybe, even mind control of some sort...the comment subliminally and/or post-hypnotically compelled you to "malfunction"...when, of course, you functioned exactly as you were programmed too...

Maybe I should sleep more, WP less. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocking

It is rare that this happens, but thank you for blocking that user! I had a feeling that the next thing that would happen was that he would vandalize my userspace. If you didn't block him, my userspace could have been turned into an attack on me. Again, thank you. Citrusbowler (talk) 01:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia. I've only blocked for a week, since it is a first offense, and they could simply not understand how WP works...but if the problem resumes after this week, let me (or WP:ANI, if it feels urgent) know, and we can increase the block length. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem with redirects

While creating article about an upcoming film here,it's proper name has redirects with it's director's name here.So,please delete them so i will able to move it.Thanx---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 12:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can always just rewrite the redirect yourself, unless it's protected. Just click on the blue link that's just under the title of the article you're redirected to, then edit there.

However, in this particular case, the correct place for the article is Bombay Velvet. We shouldn't have the "(2014 film)" unless there's some other subject also with the title Bombay Velvet. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Actually, that article shouldn't even exist. Per WP:NFF, we generally cannot have an article about a movie until principle filming has begun...and then, we can only have an article if the filming itself is the subject of significant coverage. Movies are canceled, delayed, etc., all of the time, so having an article now violates WP:CRYSTAL. Any relevant info should be covered in the director's (and/or cast members') articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove cited description

Do not remove cited description at the Report of Van Fleet Mission to Far East and Liancourt Rocks dispute. --BlueSkyWhiteSun (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that both of your edits violated WP:NPOV. The LR dispute edit made it sound like the Japanese position is fact, when, in fact, it's just Japan's position. That would need to be substantially rephrased in order to be included, and not just a big MOFA quote. The Van Fleet addition violates WP:UNDUE, which is a part of WP:NPOV, because it places excessive importance on one part of a much larger report. Unless we can find sources that discuss the report as a whole, and provide a lot more context, it's undue to focus so much on one thing.

At this point, you must go to the article talk pages and discuss the matter. It's fine to boldly add new info to Wikipedia (though, in fact, both of these things were previously included, and were removed per policy), but if someone reverts you, as I have, you must go to the article talk page and discuss the matter, not just edit war to try to keep your version in the article. This is especially true for contentious subjects like Liancourt Rocks, which are actually covered by an Arbitration decision forbidding any type of contentious, tendentious, or otherwise disruptive editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. 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) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

More Noormohammed satya socks

Hello Qwyrxian. You blocked the last Noormohammed satya sock last month and your comments at the SPI indicate you're familiar with his modus operandi. Could I persuade you to take a look at the latest two SPI reports for him? There's an SPI backlog so the clerks are demanding diffs, but the best evidence in this case would be showing how the articles created by the socks are similar or identical to deleted contributions of Noormohammed satya and his socks. I'm not an administrator and so can't get a listing of the deleted articles or provide diffs for them. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Qwyrxian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Heiro 23:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

MicroStrategy

Hi again Qwyrxian, Just wanted to let you know that it doesn't look like Dreamyshade has had a chance to review the revisions I proposed for the MicroStrategy article, so if you have some time available this week and you're willing to look again, it would be appreciated! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

So, it's been a couple weeks since posting my revised draft, and since I still haven't had any feedback on it, I think by tomorrow I'll start looking for an editor with more availability. That said, I welcome your input on that page at any time! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Just replied to say: OK, and if you do find a moment, even just looking at Products would be appreciated—that I rewrote specifically according to your points. But if not, no hard feelings. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Caught a few spare moments here, and looked specifically at the Products section, and I like it much, much better--enough that I'd approve it as is. I just made a micro-edit to remove the triple reduplication of the company name from one paragraph. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:109.145.244.1

You were probably notified because I mentioned you at SPI. If you have time to look at my actions regarding this IP, that would be helpful. I'm not sure how much you know about Nangparbat, but I suspect it's more than I do, which, until today, was absolutely nil. It's hard wading through all the edits by the various puppets to detect similarities between them and this IP, but based on your earlier block and my review, I decided it was likely that the IP was Nangparbat, even though he was editing from a non-standard range (same geographic area, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead Poisoning Image

Image help?

Greetings, I noticed that you removed a new image from Lead Poisoning last week. This image is the subject of an educational assignment and was created by one of my high school students. I was wondering if you could suggest ways to improve it or give some concrete criticism which could be used to redo the image. I'd like to some comments with my students. Comments always mean more when they come from the outside world. It's certainly not the best image but it does seem to summarize an overview of the symptoms of lead poisoning, also on the image page it is cited with web links to where the student got the information. Thanks for any help with this you can offer. Earthdirt (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the image, by it's very nature is original research. The student, who, by the way, did a very good job, has built that image by pulling together a bunch of different sources, combining them, and presenting a single "final" product. On Wikipedia, we classify that as original research, which we don't allow. As someone who has in the past taught both high school and college myself, I know that it's actually an odd thing to find out that basically any research paper that a student would write for a typical college level class, as well as a good number of high school papers, would be considered original research under Wikipedia rules. Now, it could be possible to include each of the points individually expressed in the image within the text itself, though we'd have to measure other issues (like how relevant each point is to the larger topic). But anytime we draw a conclusion by synthesizing information from multiple sources, we're in danger of violating WP:OR. I hope this helps; let me know if you or the student have further questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess I have a different understanding of WP:OR than you. I am pretty inactive as a Wikipedia editor these days but from 2007-2010 I was fairly active contributor, so I'm not just a teacher whose encountering Wikipedia for the first time. My understanding is the OR policy is really about not advancing positions through synthesis of sources which the sources don't already advance - in fact WP:OI basically states that new original images are just fine if they summarize existing sources. I'm not that familiar with Lead Poisoning but my student's work doesn't *seem* to me to advance any position it just summarizes some of the major symptoms as described in four reliable and respected internet medical sources, the information seems verifiable and not a case of A+B=C. Do you see this differently, am I missing something? I may very well be. Would you say that image would be okay if it were to reference just one source such as similar images on various illness pages? Such as [1]. Now I think the short comings to this image but I don't see the OR/Synthesis? What am I missing? Earthdirt (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm...I did forget about WP:OI...I think I've only encountered it once before. And looking at it, it appears that the image may be reasonable. The question would hinge on whether a novel conclusions were being drawn by combining together the different results/symptoms into a single place. Definitely, if the information were verified by a single source (like, if NIH had a list of all of these together) it would be fine. But you may simply be correct in the first place, that this isn't really advancing some sort of singular conclusion; rather, it could be argued that it's just taking a bunch of prose and summarizing it in an image, rather/in addition to the body of the article itself. I think there's some phrasing that would need to be cleaned up in the caption, and perhaps individual sentences there should be sourced, but it's probably okay. I'm going to go ahead and self-revert, re-adding the image, and then further editing can take place. If someone else objects, then I guess the next step would be to consult the original research noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Sorry but can you exactly pinpoint what was wrong with my edits in the IRS, sir? Uncletomwood (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. In this edit, you removed content that was verified by a reliable source, that seemed to be valid and related to the topic, and gave no reason for doing so. If you had at least explained in an edit summary why you removed the info, perhaps I might have acted differently, but as far as I could tell, you were simply removing negative information to make the Service seem better. Similarly, this edit is completely unsourced, and is very much non-neutral, violating WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place to praise subjects. If an independent, reliable source of importance praises the IRS, then it may be possible to provide a quotation of that praise, but we would need to be sure that it was WP:DUE, properly attributed, and appropriately phrased. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

intoronto1125

look at Iran at the 2010 Winter Olympics, some serious edit warring, and I believe our old blocked friend heavily involved with two or three different IP addresses.18abruce (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I semi-protected that article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DJ Earworm....again

Hello Qwyrxian, hope things are well with you. You have helped me previously on DJ Earworm with a dynamic IP. The previous block you set on March 8 expired today, June 8. We almost made it 24 hours without an edit, but alas, an IP is at it again, with very similar edits that were troublesome before. You said in our previous conversation that if they continued, you would add indefinite protection. As I think I have previously stated, since my very large edits to get the page to a good standard, there is not very much info that can be added to the page, so I don't want to page to just become the IPs adding their incorrect edits and then me (mainly) reverting them. Thank you for your continuing support on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've reinstated the semi-protection, indefinite this time. It would be great if that would get someone to start a talk page conversation, but if it just stops the warring, then that's fine too. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Whoever they are, they don't seem to be one to start a conversation as to why they feel their content should stay. It just seems like someone who just wants to vandalize because they can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

hello

as the admin who gave mezzo a warning previously here [2]..is it not time he get a block for calling my edits bigoted thats uncivil behaviour and a personal attack [3]. Baboon43 (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm much more inclined to block you here, for making a broad sweeping statement about Deobandi, essentially declaring them guilty of terrorism...a statement which is, in fact, bigoted. At a bare minimum, you have got to stop using the talk page as a forum to express your views. The only purpose of said pages is to discuss what goes in the article. But if the views you're going to express are summarily putting a whole group of people together, and declaring them to be terrorists, well, then, you need to get out of Wikipedia. I haven't decided yet if I'm going to act on the ANI discussion, either as commenter or as admin, but it most certainly won't be to block MezzoMezzo for correctly labeling your comments as bigotry. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New admin advice

Hello, my friend. I seek your advice, again. :)

I am starting the RfA process and made a short list of tasks I might do at the beginning, if accepted. There are so many things to consider that I didn't quite know what to put. I thought about where I could be helpful, and be comfortable, and already have experience, and would have little chance of making errors, and other things.

Per suggestions, I've been following a few admins around, but it's hard to build up a picture. I'm now thinking maybe I could possibly handle non-controversial cases of blatant vandalism and maybe even 3RR violations, but I'm not sure. So, I thought I'd write to you and ask what you did once you first became an admin. How was it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly time! :) If I think back, I'm pretty sure that I started by watching WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Since I used to do anti-vandalism patrolling using Huggle, I knew how frustrating it was to have a determined vandal just keep attacking pages (or people), and there being no admins around to stop it. For me, those are the two things which are most time-sensitive. They're also fairly easy to judge. Since the remit at AIV is very narrow (only vandalism and spam), any report which goes beyond that (e.g., edit warring, disruptive editing, etc.) can be declined by a patrolling admin on the grounds that it needs to go somewhere else--there's even helpful templates for that, which you'll see when you try to edit the AIV page directly. Of course, you can tackle the other issues, but there's not immediate need to. RFPP is also relatively easy, since it's a matter of looking at the history, judging whether what's happening is one-sided vandalism or edit warring, and then either protecting or blocking as needed. And it's really hard to go too wrong when protecting an article, since the worst case scenario is that everyone has to just start talking for a while on the talk page (assuming you checked for blatant copyvios and BLP problems).

I believe that after that I started doing CSDs, since, again, I'd had experience with them and since at least half of them are pretty obvious. And the way the CSD listing works, if you can't decide if the article should be deleted, you can just leave it, and let another admin make the call.

It wasn't until later that I started checking WP:3RRNB, which is still rare for me, and I almost never specifically check WP:ANI for things that need doing...though I do on occasion take administrative actions related to things I happen to read there just naturally. And it's also nice that I never have to do anything I don't feel comfortable with; for instance, I never help out at WP:AE, and I almost never delete files/images, since image copyright law and our fair use policies are pretty complex.

I will tell you that I've had two problems as an admin. The first is WP-related: I often have a problem of going to an article with my administrator hat on, then watchlisting the article, and then over time I end up getting drawn into actual editorial decisions, and then I'm WP:INVOLVED...and it can be tough to know when you've moved from admin to editor. The other problem, which is probably obvious, is that some people don't take administrative decisions well; I have had a half dozen people attempt to out me and/or contact me through non-WP channels. And one thing that surprised me is that it wasn't the POV-pushers that were going to all of this effort to go after me (like, say, the problem editors we have in Indian caste articles)...rather, it was the vandals, the trolls, the people who want to engage in personal attacks. At least one of them was very blatant about it, telling me (and others involved) that they didn't care about our rules, and that we either had to unblock them or they'd start an off-Wiki campaign against us. So, just be sure that you're comfortable with that when you block someone who seems particularly difficult. And if you're not, that's okay--there's still thousands of things for admins to do even if they rarely or never use the block button. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will give it a much more through read very shortly, and over coffee, and respond. I am very much obliged. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Pure gold, my friend. Pure gold.

If it doesn't already exist, maybe I ought to start a page that is a collection of these. It would offer so much, not only to new admins, but to those considering becoming one. If you know of such a page, please let me know. I would love to read it, very thoroughly. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I had missed your response (one of the lingering problems of the change in notification, though one I just need to learn to fix on my end). I can't think of any place in specific that collects the info. There is Wikipedia:New admin school, which has both information and, once you get the bit, some places for you to test things out--fake accounts to block, pages to protect, etc. But advice seems to be something that just gets passed around. Most admins, of course, including myself, will always answer questions. For example, for me, for deletion questions I usually turned to User:DGG, in part because of his long experience and in part because I know he has a much more inclusionist opinion than I do, so it's good to hear his opinion. And, like I said, some things I still avoid. Like, I don't think I'll ever bother to learn how to handle templates or filters; I've done programming before, so I could, but I feel that there's enough to do without learning a new language just to handle one task.

If you want to collect this somehow, of course, feel free to do so; it could be an essay residing either in user space or Wikipedia space. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And thank you again. I think I'll wait too see if I pass and then worry about the collection of advice page. I like the fake account testing thing. That sounds good. Many thanks again. And wish me luck. Those additional RfA questions look hard. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

OK

Before three days I got banned for violating 3RR for period of 48 hours. I apologized to admin who blocked me, and after block-time I come back and made account by advice of other admin. I'm not unaware of such rule now so I didn't revert it at two pages for third time (Talk:Lullubi and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection), I took both to report page. However, I see that other user got blocked five times in past five years, every time for edit warring. Of course I'm willing to discuss about any issue, but unfortunately I don't see any will from other side. --HistorNE (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This user, both before and as an anonymous IP, is WP:NOTHERE for anything other than disruption and trying to get longterm users blocked with trickery. I replied to you (Qwyrxian) on my talkpage to say I put some diffs as evidence on the SPI page. Let me also state that this individual is no newbie and knows exactly how to game the system. Their response is not "Huh? What's a sockpuppet?" but rather "No. The rules say you have to give me every benefit of plausible deniability while I continue to do as much damage and disruption for as long as possible." This should have been open and shut a long time ago, I don't know what's happening any more. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just let the case run its course. There's no terrible tragedy even if HistorNE is a sockpuppet and gets to edit a few more days. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. 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) 03:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 20:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Another ANI thread

As an admin which oversaw the previous edit warring at Barelvi, I mentioned you indirectly (not by name) in an ANI thread about an issue which boiled over recently at Talk:Barelvi. While you are not involved in this current issue, I brought up the previous edit warring as I suspected some funny business going on; it's up to you whether or not you'd like to attest to my paranoia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In other news, there is a new editor logging in periodically only to edit war on an article about a Barelvi figure. If you check this article history, you'll notice this guy periodically logging in to massively revert a cleanup I did while still refusing to respond to my queries on the talk pages for him personally and the article. He's a noob so it's not ban-worthy and it certainly doesn't look like it will reach 3RR violations, but I'm not sure how to explain to him that he needs to discuss things instead of simply accusing me of vandalism. Given your experience with this stuff and the subject matter, I was hoping you could advise a more effective way of communicating with this guy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the page, though no guarantees that I'll see further disruption as it happens. I have notified both of the reverters that their reversions violate policies. As for a next step, I recommend that you follow the same plan I recommended on Barelvi. Take one smaller change (it can still be thousands of characters, but start in just one section). Make all of the necessary removals, then post on the talk page why you removed them. In most cases, as far as I can see from a quick glance, it's because the sources don't meet WP:RS. You don't need to be verbose; just a simple list of "1) Youtube is not a reliable source. 2) www.??? is a self-published website/blog, thus not a reliable source. etc.". Then wait for a week. Then take on the next section. If they continue reverting at that pace, I'll step in administratively. I don't think anything on that page is violating WP:BLP or is a copyvio, so there is no immediate harm in the poor info standing. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I missed this again. Alright, I actually reverted the shabbirkhan user due to the similarly combative edit summary, though looking at this now I realize that ultimately this suggestion is what made things work out at Barelvi. Kind of awkward, but I guess I will wait for one of them to revert again (neither of them seems to edit much else, only a handful of other articles) so that's likely. Then I'll just do it with the same policy-based, gradual method. Thanks a lot for the reply and advice - despite what that crazy guy threatening to "tell his family not to donate to Wikipedia" said, there are quite a few users on here other than me who think you do a fantastic job. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Wo2gana

Hi, What we do to the edits made by Wo2gana ? Do we keep them as it is or revert to the form that was there a week ago. Awaiting your comments. Cossde (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Blargh. Go ahead and revert everything back to before he touched it, since he's been blocked as a Masu7 sock. What a stupid waste of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyars

Could you please let me know , what is the copy right material I have pasted in the wiki page "Vanniyar". I need the proof of the material what you pasted for vanniyar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You copied the blog. The whole thing. You just copied and pasted it. That's a copyright violation. You can never just copy something someone else wrote and put it into Wikipedia. Plus, that blog is not a reliable source, so you can't even summarize part of it and put it into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok , but I can summarise the contents which was a legally published book right .

I found a book named " Caste and tribes of south India" so I can summarise that contents and paste here , its reliable source.

The seven-volume work was one of several such publications resulting from the Ethnographic Survey of India project which was formally instituted by the Government of British India in 1901. The Survey was intended to record details of the manners, customs and physical features of Indian castes and tribes using in part the anthropometric methods that had first been used in India by Herbert Hope Risley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that source is not reliable either, and for exactly the reason you explain. Yes, around the turn of the 20th century, there was a lot of interest among British and other European groups in categorizing and defining people based on their physical characteristics. In the last 100 years, though, anthropology, sociology, and history have realized that such a classification is completely ridiculous; it's never reliable, always up to individual interpretation, almost always related to blatant racism and Eurocentrism, and has nothing to do with how people actually organize themselves into social units. As such, you can't use that as a reference, either. This has been discussed on numerous pages related to Indian caste; the general consensus is that while we can sometimes refer to the theories that were created at that time, as historical theories, we should never present the claims as fact, and never give them very much prominence. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir then how you are allowing the following lines in the page

"In the 19th century the Vanniyar held a low position in both Lower Burma and in South India.[1][2] For example, Dharma Kumar refers to several early 19th century authors who describe the Palli in South India as being higher than untouchables but still essentially slaves,[1] while Michael Adas says that in Burma the Palli were "socially better off" than the untouchable castes but were "economically equally exploited and deprived".[2]" .

Even these lines are just claims of the theories from the books

a b Kumar, Dharma (1965). Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge Studies in Economic History. Cambridge University Press.

2.^ a b Adas, Michael. The Burma Delta : economic development and social change on an Asian rice frontier, 1852-1941. New Perspectives in SE Asian Studies. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299283542.

we should never present the claims as fact, and never give them very much prominence. so  could you please remove those lines which are mentioned historical status because they are just claims by the author of the book and not the fact.

And you have blocked me from editing the page could you please rollback the block on my edit .→→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Policy and Editing

Hi Qwyrxian, there seems to be some confusion over some policies at the article talk page "Love Jihad" - just the section on Sikhs where an annonymous user had added relevant content. It had neutrality issues but they were fixed and I reviewed the section afterwards independently to confirm whether it violated any policy after another user removed the entire section. The editor in question is claiming that the Sikh section violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS when the section lifts all it's quotes from an academic study. Either I can't see it violating policy or there is some disruptive wikilawyering going on to try to remove it; I'm assuming good faith for the moment as I see the editor is at mistake. Could you please read the section (it's very short) and see if there is indeed anything which violates policy? It's just that policy is the main thing being claimed to counter it's inclusion and I think it's being applied wrongly. It's not exactly a content dispute since it comes from a reliable source. Just want to see if it really does violate policy as I'm puzzled random policies are being quoted to support removal. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The question of synthesis here is a legitimate one, though if the other editor just called it OR the point would be the same. The question is (as the other editor raised on talk), is the phenomenon described in the research paper the same as the phenomenon called Love Jihad that the article is about? If so, how do you know? OrangesRYellow has asserted that "forced conversion" is distinct from "love jihad". In order for that information to remain in the article, you need to clearly show that they are the identical concept using different words. I'll have to draw an analogy: if you had a British newspaper talking about the dangers of a company's "prams" and an American newspaper talking about the dangers of a company's "baby carriages", you could certainly state that they're talking about the same thing, because "pram" and "baby carriage" are widely known to clearly be the same thing, with one being UK English and the other being US English. But the case here is more complex, and OrangesRYellow is stating that attempting to equate the two is a form of OR.

Now, I don't know if they're the same. I don't know enough about the subject to know if there are regularly recognized hierarchies about converted people via feigned romantic interest, nor do I know how clearly defined either of the terms is. That's a matter you'll have to work out on the talk page. My gut feeling, though, is that while the matter is in dispute, the info should remain out of the article, as it's better to err on the side of including less, particularly when the info includes negative portrayals of living (though anonymous) people. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent reverts

Hi. Thank you for your earlier guidance. Now, I added some sourced information to article Aam Admi Party, which was immediately reverted by user AcorruptionfreeIndia and the reasons given by him may be technically correct. In my opinion, instead of just deleting the information added by me, the editor would have asked clarification/further sources. On going through the edit history, I am surprised by the number of deletions made by the same editor. Users, Sitush and Thethinkingyouth are patiently reverting or updating/sourcing several deletions made by the editor. For statistical purpose, the edits made by the user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" to this particular article from 12.6.2013 to 16.6.2013 are as below- (- for deletion, + for addition)

12.6.2013 : -640K, -431, -830, -1171, -362, -1232, -379, -425, +20, -120, -479, -19, -176, -291, -19, -338, -88, +105

15.6.2013: +622, -1721, -151, -228, -36

16.6.2013: -243, +1, -241, -334, -583, -589

I have requested, in the talk page of the article, to ask for clarity/sources or arrive consensus, before deleting, so that enough time is given to other editors to build an encyclopedic article. Kindly advise me, whether the series of deletions made by the above user are valid and done as per Wikipedia policy? Thank you. Rayabhari (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk · contribs) needs a warning about WP:ARBIPA before this turns into an even bigger timesink than it already is. They're just being plain silly on talk pages and mostly disruptive on articles themselves. Alas, the ARBIPA templated warning can only be issue by an admin. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE#Senkaku Islands

Hello Qwyrxian. Oda Mari has now withdrawn the request that she filed at WP:ARCA, and the issue is now presented at WP:AE#Senkaku Islands. (The old request is in the history here). Since you understand this stuff, please comment at AE and tell us how to proceed :-). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User Eshwar.om

He returns to do the same for which he was blocked for two months, lives up to his reputation. Most of his edits tend to be biased. Please see User_talk:Eshwar.om RTPking (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, the edit warring isn't obvious to me after a quick look; if I have time, I'll look into sometime over the next week, but I'm not sure (it's not exactly fun work). Alternatively, if you could point me specifically to the problem, then maybe I can see it more clearly. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing cinema of andhra

ur intervention may be needed to control disruptive editing of a good article nominated article Murrallli (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Murrallli, you're completely out of line. You're making this into something much bigger than it is, and you treated that new editor totally inappropriately, in violation of WP:BITE. Ethicalead is clearly not a vandal, and is trying to add what s/he believes is useful information to Wikipedia. Now, the source that they've used doesn't meet WP:RS, so it can't be used for our purposes, but WP:RS is a pretty difficult rule to understand, especially in a case like this where it isn't completely obvious. Users like that need to be instructed in our rules, not scolded and threatened. I understand that getting an article ready for Good status is a lot of work, but that doesn't change our open editing policy, or our requirement to be civil to each other and especially to help new users. Of course, if the editor keeps trying to force that info into the article, we may have to block the user, but we will do so regretfully, and solely to get the person to realize that this isn't allowed, not because we think they're deliberately trying to do something wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And now I just noticed that you've made similar threats against User:RTPKing, who, while not a new user, is certainly not causing some sort of massive disruption. I think you may want to reconsider how you are approaching that article, and editing in general. You should not be automatically labeling someone who edits in a way you disagree with as "disruptive" and giving them Level 4 warnings. And just because you're working on a GA nom doesn't give you the right to take control of an article and dictate everything about it. GA promotion, like everything else on Wikipedia, is a collaborative process. Others may suggest different ways of editing, and consensus may even go against you. And the process may even result in the GA nomination being delayed or failing until consensus is achieved. This is a good thing; the goal is not to get the good article stamp; rather, the goal is to get a Good Article, however long that takes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Abbot gordon

Thank you for blocking him. He was becoming a nuisance with his combination of vandalism and patent nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto what Robert McClenon says. Took me ages to work my way undoing all his edits. So thanks :) --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Birkdale School

I notice that you reverted an IP edit that changed "The Rev'd" back to "Reverend". As I understand it, "The Rev'd" is an accepted alternative title for a cleric. However, this edit/revert points to what I think is an inconsistency in the article. I have removed the pre-nominal in the infobox per WP:WPSCH/AG#IB, yet there are similar pre-nominals in boxes further down, where you edited. If pre-nominals are not the form in infoboxes, why should they be in other boxes ? Also, in another box, there were (now removed) names of housemasters, which ran against guidelines under WP:WPSCH/AG#OS (note Notable teachers/faculty/staff). There remain boxes and text that itemize rooms in particular buildings, such as locker rooms, which amount to trivia or certainly not to anything special that marks out the school. I also have a problem with the "Listen to this article" sound file - what is WP policy on voice copies of article text that may not reflect article development, may fix "text" to an imperfect style, and be difficult to update or offer reference verifiability to support any claim made. Do you have a view on these points ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

On Reverend, you've actually hit on the key point, and I can't believe I didn't notice it before. Not just on school articles, but, actually, throughout Wikipedia, we're not supposed to use prenomials, with a very small set of exceptions (like the formal UK titles such as "Sir"). Religious titles are explicitly listed as those which should not be used, so any such titles should be removed from the entire article. I usually just say, "Remove titles per WP:MOS" in my edit summaries. Could you do the hunt and search to take those out?

As for the buildings, you can see that I've just stripped out that excessive table. The Headmaster table is borderline, as I think it could be covered much more simply in a list (even a bulleted list), but it's a judgment call.

As for your more general question...I'm a big fan of cutting the heck out of school articles. The problem seems especially endemic to UK schools, I think because they have a long history and attempt to instill a much stronger "school spirit/tradition/history" than, say, US schools, and so people want to replicate that info on Wikipedia. Exactly how much we should include is, of course, an editorial decision, but we really should be focusing on things that are of lasting, encyclopedic information to general reader--not promotional, not listing details that are better covered in a School History etc. If there's pushback from other editors, we can deal with it on the talk page.

And, finally, on the sound files...to be honest, I have no idea. They're so rare that I almost never see them. It's true that they rapidly become outdated. I think that's expected. I assume that if it's so outdated that it no longer comes close to the article (and especially if it includes policy violations like being non-neutral, puffery, or BLP violations), then we should just remove the link. Is that the case here? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I shall scout around for errant cleric pre nominals. The former-headmaster list I think is not particularly informative for the reader - guidelines mention "a short description of their achievements, is often useful", but no "achievements" are offered. If they cannot be shown to have achievements (does this mean within the school or general notability ?) then perhaps this list/box is wasting space, and would only be of interest to those at the school. And, of course, none named have WP articles.

The sound file is already out of date. It includes the kitchens/lockers type trivia that you removed. Perhaps more importantly, it repeats the names of Notable alumni from the article. All these are living, with only one adequately sourced as being associated - and only one linked WP BLP article names the school, but with no ref proof.

I've never seen these sound files before - I now see this: Wikipedia:Spoken articles. After listening to a few there seems wide inconsistencies, which are discussed on Spoken article talk pages. Some are machine translations, some are in accents that might cause confusion, some are spoken too fast, all seem out-of-date, all, by their nature, cannot offer references, and some, (particularly school sound files as you might expect) contain weasels and trivia. I can't find guidelines on their use - perhaps there should be as they can only grow in number.

BTW - can you point me to the MOS page that guides the removal of pre-nominals on pages generally. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Eastside Kids

It was not my intention to spam the site, there is no need to get so nasty. I thought the link I provided was useful and not in any way spam. Since my help is not needed or, apparently, wanted, I shall cease editing on Wiki and leave it to geniuses like you. Senex04 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If you read this, sorry I upset you. But the problem is that you added the site, and then re-added it several times after someone told you it violates our policies. We don't provide links just because they're "useful"; we have, in fact, extremely strict standards and allow only a tiny number of links. The policy is listed at WP:EL. Your help, like everyone's help, is wanted, but you do have to learn to work within our policies and guidelines, just like all other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian

You reverted my edits on Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli. I did made some editions. Thank you for your suggestion. I will not remove any tags. I will be editing it and then I will contact you to check if those tags are still needed. JackLuna 22:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackLuna (talk • contribs) 22:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please make sure that any sources you add meet WP:RS as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential RFC/U

Considering that you did attempt to sort out exactly what's happening with User:Baboon43, I am contacting you per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#Qualification. The draft of the RFC/U is at my sandbox; if you're willing to endorse this RFC/U, then you have my consent to edit my sandbox as needed in order to make that apparent. I hope this will encourage him to approach disputes differently in the future. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm not certain I meet the requirement. The only place that I warned Baboon43 is above, on my talk page, and I'm not sure if there's been any continued problems since then. I think that if even one more bigoted or otherwise forumy problem comes up from him, then I could certify it (since I'd have warned and he'd have continued on with the same behavior despite the warning). Alternatively, you could ask one of the people who'd warned Baboon43 on his talk page, and see if they'd be willing to certify. It would be very bad for the RfC/U to get taken down because it wasn't certified, as that would likely falsely embolden both him and others. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand 100%. For the sake of filing it properly, I will actually remove your diff from the draft. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wish to inform you that the aformentioned RFC/U is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43. You had previously expressed concern over some of the issues brought up. Should you wish to comment, you know how it goes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources and discussion

After Very Long gap i received message from you.First thing is , i want to wish you.because your giving contribution to Wikipedia from 2008 .

yes i read your message ,i understood.My apologies.why i mentioned please discuss in to talk page.the reason is previously i got more interruption on my edits. Particularly from two users.so said.Apart from that there is no attitude problem i am keeping.you point out about my previous blocks.But you know the reasons why i blocked.As a new editor chances will there to get a emotion .i too cross that stage.one more good thing i noticed from you this time,your not using words like "what a hell" like those.Thanks for that.you told every one have a rights to edit wikipedia.but some user consider them self they might be a ownership of particular article.Please help me in this.i got a enough maturity because of my previous experience. i dont want to say more than that like what you mentioned about all my edits.but i suppose to point out that.see where the reliable info missing there just i am adding .that is it.there is chance the articles information belongs to one particular thing. For that we will not avoid the particular.if we avoid such a things how can we measure articles weight?article will not meet the NPOV. i dont want to say more now.Please see the reliable source for Srikalahasti Temple for your previous edits.click here reliable sourceA Monograph on Temples of Srikalahasti. souuce 2U.V. Swaminatha Iyer,Sahitya Akademi.I hope you do the needful.Thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 05:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't use either of those sources in the edit. Do those sources cover the same information? If so, then you can re-add. There may be other reasons it doesn't belong in, as I'm not so familiar with the details here, but I do know that the first key is the use of sources that meet WP:RS Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli JackLuna 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User RTPking

He returns back .The user RTP king again start to do the interruption on my edits as-usual what he did before.He removed the reliable source book citation and its contents from Tenali Ramakrishnapage.The source is Cultural History Of Medieval India.Also he removed the tags.he restored the previous version before my edits.so there what are the things i contributed those are all removed. To see the differenceplease click here.May i know who has given ownership to him for more article?.Because i have been watching such activity from three users.so said.Please Tell him.Thank you.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 09:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted RTPking and explained why on his talk page. I'll continue to monitor the situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Reversion on Instagram

Thanks, I first reverted the removal because there was no proper reason given, not in the edit summary, and not on the talk page. I didn't revert because it was sourced, but because the removal was apparently unjustified. I don't oppose removing it because of WP:UNDUE. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The Rahul Jain

Removing cats from dozens of articles which are supposed to be in articles. E.g [4] [5] [6][7]. Removing infoboxes eg [8][9]. Moving pages without discussion and edit summary [10][11]. I had tried to give glimpse of his edit history on ANI in this thread. I will write his whole history. neo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking the user now about the category and infobox removal. On the article names, I don't actually know for sure what our policy is (since it's been in flux lately), so I'm going to have to ask someone first. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE#Senkaku Islands proposed closure

There is now a proposal by User:Cailil for some sanctions. If you haven't noticed the recent edits of the AE, perhaps you can take another look and see what you think should be done. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Qamaruzzaman Azmi

Forgot about that one. The first move I made was to remove anything which I found copy-pasted from his official fan site, which covered more than one section - so the first edit wasn't technically section-by-section. If it's too much at one time, then I can self revert and try to find a different way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Answers

Hi, Regarding the two questions you asked on my talk page:

Regarding removal of categories in the following: [12] [13] [14][15]:

In three of the diffs mentioned here I felt that removal of those categories were appropriate to avoid over-categorization. There aren't any non-Indian Jain monks (as far as I know), and it is highly unlikely that there would be any non-Indian Jain monks be in future. Because of the vows taken by Jain monks, they do not travel overseas or on vehicle. This makes migration impossible. Also, to become a monk, it requires one to get initiated by another monk as per the tradition. An Acharya is a higher order Jain monk and currently all Jain monks are inevitably writers. So I supposed that one category would be enough for those articles and I replaced the category with Jain monks. Santhara is also not a good category. The category had articles related to people who committed suicide by santhara and the list would include almost all Jain ascetics who aren't killed in road accidents.

Regarding removal of infoboxes from articles without explanation [16][17]:

Most of the data presented in those infobox were problematic. For example, it mentioned Mahavira's colour as yellow. His yaksha as Gaumukh and yakshini as Chakeshwari. Mahavira's birth date and place is disputed and is mentioned in the article. In case of Rishabha, it mentioned his height as "500 dhanusha" his Age At Death as "8,400,000 purva" and same yaksha and yakshini as were with Mahavira. The data is too technical for a common person to understand and 500 dhanusha is approximately 1500 meters. Saying that he was a human and had such a height requires huge amount of clarification.

I have made lot of bold edits. Apparently one wikipedia editor stalked me down and reverted most of my edits. As per WP:BRD, I began discussion for some of them, but it is quite difficult to do it for all of those edits which were reverted. The fact that my previous efforts to have any logical discussion with that particular editor has failed makes me more reluctant to initiate a discussion. Please look at these conversation, they are not relevant to the above questions, but might be helpful regarding the investigation in general:

Conversations I had with User:Neo.

• Wikipedia:Administrator's notice board/incidents
• Talk:Chanakya
• Talk:Chandragupta Maurya
• Talk:Rishabha

• Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (might also be of interest)

Rahul Jain (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You know that multiple categories exists in almost every article on wikipedia. How should one make sense that Jain monks are ALL-IN-ONE i.e Acharyas and writers also? That's obviously false. Take this edit. Just 2 cats are over-categorization? 'Jainism' cat is supposed to be there but you removed it. And if there is some mistake in infobox then either correct or remove that mistake. Why wipe out infoboxes with other info and images? There are other problems also like moving and redirecting pages without discussion and edit summaries. Either you restore your moves or face more queries. You can't vandalize articles and escape by using word 'stalking'. neo (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at this right now (it may be a few days), but Neo, do not use the word "vandalize" to refer to good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Doing so is considered a personal attack. The Rahul Jain may be wrong, but it's clear that he is in good faith trying to do what he perceives of as improvement. Also, the moves may actually be correct (as I said, I need to investigate). The Rahul Jain, I think that it may be best if you avoided edits of this type for a few days, just to allow some breathing room while I or other editors look into the details. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

THe Rahul Jain, thank you for those links. After reviewing them, I believe I am seeing a problem here--and it's User:Neo.. Neo, you appear to be edit warring to keep unsourced material. Also, you either don't understand WP:RS, or you are deliberately choosing to ignore it, using instead unreliable websites and blog posts instead of academic texts. Third, you accused The Rahul Jain of having a COI; however, COI only refers to being closely related to or employed by the subject of an article. Religion never causes a COI problem. Yes, it can causes non-neutral editing, but we would never, under any circumstance, say that someone of Religion X should not edit articles about that religion. Fourth, in several places, your arguments on article talk pages border on being original research, although here at times TRJ has joined you to a lesser extent. You can't argue about someone's religion based upon their caste, by making an argument about how caste works. You need a source that states the person's religion; any attempt to say "Group A is usually Religion X, Person Y is in Group B, so they're Religion X".

On the infoboxes, I think that your underlying goal was correct, TRJ, but I think you could have explained why, and, in some cases, have preserved the info, such as by converting obscure units into contemporary ones. I do agree that infoboxes that provide little to no information should be removed; there's a common misconception among some editors that all or almost all articles should have infoboxes, when, in fact, many/most should not, unless there is signficant, reliable information that can be put there. But when you make a major change like that to an article, you should expect that there will be resistance; it often helps to explain on the talk page why you removed the template. And, of course, if any of the template info is verified and isn't in the body of the article, it should be moved there.

On the categories, the removal of categories seems acceptable to me, and if another editor objects, a discussion should ensue on the talk page. Since none of these seem to be living people, it's fine to leave the article in status quo case while discussion continues.

However, Neo., you can't use this as a tool to bludgeon TRJ. That is, you shouldn't just follow him around and say "I'm reverting to the status quo until this is justified on the talk page". Instead, you should consider each edit individually, especially since a large number of the "concerns" you've raised actually seem to be correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)