Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:54, 18 December 2014

It's time to make a stand against the arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia. Their salaries are paid on the back of our unpaid work, therefore in line with some others I've decided to withdraw my labour every Monday until things change. And if they don't, I'll be extending the length of my strike. I encourage everyone to join me.

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

List of Nadars

Thank you for the explanation in my talk page, with all due respect sir, all the other names in that pages have no reference at all, at least I point a article where the subject's father caste, that is same as his own. No problem, I am a newbie to the wikipedia, thanks for pointing to the right direction. :) Regards,

Raghav (surname)

I reverted in Bargujar; searching Google for strings in the reverted additions led me to both Old Kingdom of Bargujars, an article by the same user, and Raghav (surname). In the latter I'm inclined to restore this previous revision and discard the rest as coat-racking. It appears to have been copy-pasted from several on-line sources. Would that be a fair call? Sam 19:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The puffery relating to this community has gone on for years, as has that relating to many other communities of India. If there is a {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} tag on such an article and it has been there for, say, four months, I'd remove everything that is not sourced. Almost always, the content comes from either oral history (alas, not acceptable here) or via Raj ethnographies etc (also not acceptable here, and often thankfully so). Any large blocks of unsourced text that are less than three months old should ideally be checked for copyvio issues and sometimes can be rescued if you're prepared to put the effort in. Of course, in theory we are supposed to put the effort in but, bearing in mind the sort of sources where such info tends to come from, the occasions when it is a good use of time tend to be few and far between and the real burden lies on the person who added it.

The above is a harsh but rational approach given the extent of the problems in the topic area. I don't always follow it but I probably do so on more occasions than not. These articles can always be rebuilt (if notable as topics) and often I do that over a period of time.

Does this help as a general guide? It is my common approach but is neither endorsed by anyone else nor applied by me without at least some discretion. Applying the discretion is something that becomes easier with time: you get a feel for the subject area, for what sounds right/wrong etc and, of course, you develop a pretty good understanding of the merits of the commonly used sources and editorial techniques (which includes phrasing, especially in relation to copyvio detection). - Sitush (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your tips on how to navigate these choppy waters. As you may remember I am always happy too try to add a reference; in the case of Old Kingdom of Bargujars that seems impossible judging from a Google Book search, and I have tagged it as a hoax and will take it to AfD to get the opinions from other editors. As for Raghav (surname) most of what has been added has nothing to do with the article subject and I will remove it. Sam 22:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The tips didn't specifically address your queries but they are an accumulation of my experiences here. I suspect that the kingdom article is not a hoax but rather oral history: there were a lot of very tiny chiefdoms in India, for example, some of which even became recognised by the Brits as princely states or as zamindari estates. I've not yet checked either online or in my references here at home but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are no written sources of merit that support notability. As I intimated above, this issue with oral history - while probably not capable of being resolved without WP entirely losing credibility - is an example of systemic bias.

I'll take another look at the surname article after you have done your stuff. Most of the issues seem pretty obvious to me but I'm not going to be around for ever and I'm really pleased when other sensible people take an interest in the subject area. It is possible to turn some caste-related articles into encyclopaedic articles but I don't think a lot of people appreciate just how difficult it is to achieve that and in particular to do so when faced with so many that quite simply will never amount to much at all unless some future anthropologist or whatever decides to conduct a formal study. An awful lot of my time here is spent trying to ensure that they do not get worse rather than that they improve. It isn't something that I am particularly proud of because it gives the impression of deletionism etc but, hey, some sort of standards need to be maintained and as long as there are only a few people taking an interest, it is a rather difficult task just to try to stand still. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarifications

@Sitush (and others those who are reading, please feel free to answer my question, thnx)

I have a question. Not related to this topic (Bargujar; Old Kingdom of Bargujars and Raghav (surname)), but about an interesting comment you made above "Raj ethnographies etc (also not acceptable here, and often thankfully so)". I am trying to understand why so, as they are generally ONLY source of history we have for many communities. Indian communities have rich oral tradition and very little written histories, a a lot of written history had been lost when the successive waves of muslim invaders destroyed the universities and temples that houses the manuscripts, etc. Oral histories wont pass the muster on WP, but Raj ethonographies then become only published and verfiable sources, even if British Raj indulged in scientific racism it does not negate the whole pile of works they wrote, it only shows they were racist and nothing more, why shall their work be rejected?

Another question I have is what is the best way to overcome this problem, where mostly oral history is available, most published sources are either British Raj sources or they newly published sources (many a times by the members of the communities themselves but not the editors, but they are published sources nonetheless).

In other words, what are the ways we can help more communities get documented on WP, when they are poorly published and or they are only published by the sources I mentioned above. Western world had the industrial revolution few centuries ago, they have lot more published sources, developed world though rich in heritage but sadly lacks in QUANTUM of PUBLISHED sources, how do we bring the digital revolution to them by getting them documented from WHATEVER SOURCES we have? Shouldn't all sources be considered GOODFAITH EDIT, unless they can specifically be refuted?

Thanks.

Vdhillon (talk)

I guess the short answer is that if something is deemed to be unreliable etc then it is unreliable. And we don't use unreliable sources on Misplaced Pages, period. As I've said above, there is an issue of systemic bias here relating to oral history but I don't see how it can be avoided while still maintaining at least some integrity as a project (and, boy, this project lacks integrity). Nothing is perfect and I am well aware that in the Indic ethnography sphere this creates enormous problems. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A request

Hi Sitush, I'm sorry to ask this, but I saw you post on GGTF today, and I think it is not a good idea for you to do that. I realize that the ArbCom didn't topic ban you, but I hope you'll agree that it would be better if you were to observe a voluntary withdrawal. SlimVirgin 18:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Won't happen. If I do something wrong, you have a recourse. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do have recourse. I can go to ArbCom, AE or AN/I to request a topic ban, i.e. dredge it all up again, which is the last thing I want to do. What you did to Carol was unpleasant, and you were yourself were under enormous pressure at the time because someone else was threatening you. So the whole thing was a horrible dynamic of stressed people not behaving the way they would if not stressed. I would really like to draw a line under it as far as GGTF is concerned, but I don't think that's going to be possible if you keep posting there, especially voicing the same issues as before. SlimVirgin 21:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I said you have a recourse. Now back off, please, with all these dubious allegations. It is not a closed group, I've said nothing wrong and indeed people have agreed even today. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, I want to apologize for what I wrote above, and withdraw it. I have no right to ask that, and the whole point of moving forward is to let wounds heal. (Also, re-reading what I wrote, it comes across as sharp. I wasn't feeling that when I wrote it, but I expressed it badly, in addition to the fact that I shouldn't have written it at all). So, even though you need no invitation from me, you're very welcome at GGTF.

Also, I want to add my best wishes on the addition of the star to William Beach Thomas. I've just read it and found it very interesting, and I know how much work goes into FAs, so congratulations on its promotion. SlimVirgin 13:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was short-tempered, too, so it is apologies all round. I'm not going to be spending oodles of time at GGTF but it is on my watchlist and I may comment occasionally.

WBT was a doddle compared to your FGM article but thanks for the appreciation. My interest is mainly in article content: we've got > 4.5 million articles and I'd guess > 4 million of them are pretty woeful. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush, that's kind of you. I've always been the same re: content. I've mostly been happiest when writing articles (though "happy" isn't quite the right word!). It's really satisfying to produce something decent that people will read, and I've learned a lot over the years watching how other editors put it together. Misplaced Pages is actually an amazing place. SlimVirgin 13:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of William Beach Thomas to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,287 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite 10:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Like Nice work!--Mark Miller (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There is credit due elsewhere. Most notably to Eric Corbett, without whom the thing would not have crossed the finishing line. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Fictional flags

Saw your edit at Chola dynasty, and almost spurted out my coffee. Do you or any of your talk-page stalkers, know of a tool for removing File:Flag_of_Chola_Kingdom.png and File:Twin_fish_flag_of_Pandyas.svg from all the wikipedia articles they are included in, or does it have to be done manually? Abecedare (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I know of no tool and was intending to return and remove them manually using the "links" list. I came across the Chola one when removing File:Simha flag of Pallava Kingdom.png from the Pallavas article. That, too, will need deeper cleaning and I rather suspect that there are others. - Sitush (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Flag of Vijayanagara Empire.png. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And more: See the flags here for example, each of which has also been used on numerous other pages. Will need massive cleanup. Abecedare (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Alas, because they're at Commons and that place has weird rules, we can't take the easy option of deleting the image centrally & letting the bot do the work. It is perhaps also because the things are at Commons that they are being used on multiple other projects, especially ta-WP. Of course, those other projects may also have a different attitude regarding whether or not they can be used. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yup, we can't solve the problem at the root unfortunately, and will have to restrict the clean-up to en-wp (unless we are feeling particularly adventurous). In some cases though the flags/coat of arms are copyvios (designed in 2005, but used on wikipedia for century-old-dynasties!), eg 1, 2, and 3 which I have tagged for deletion. For the rest, manual labor will be needed. Btw, I plan to use your page to list the files that need to be reviewed/removed from article-space; speak up if your prefer that I use my own/some-other page for this purpose. Else just add to the list below. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• File:Flag of Vijayanagara Empire.png
• File:Twin_fish_flag_of_Pandyas.svg
• File:Pudukkottai_flag.svg
• File:Pandara_Vanniyan_vector_flag.svg
• File:Simha_flag_of_Pallava_Kingdom.png
• File:Flag_of_Chera_dynasty.svg
• File:Flag_of_Chola_Kingdom.png
• File:Chola flag.png
• File:Kakatiya flag.png
• File:King of Kandy.svg (description says "self-made" - a bit ambiguous but there is no cited basis)

The following three are copyvios, and hopefully will be deleted and removed by bot. So don't bother removing manually:

• File:Royal_Flag_of_the_Jaffna_Kingdom.svg
• File:Jaffna_royal_flag.jpeg
• File:Jaffna_coat_of_armst.jpeg

It is fine to do it here. I'm part way through and will strike from your list as I go. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The File:King of Kandy.svg may be ok per (not necessarily a RS; also issues of circularity but...) and because I would expect that we would know what a flag for a 19th century kingdom would look like. "Self-made" may just mean that the uploader "made" the svg image using an existing design; which is fine (analogous to paraphrasing text). This is distinct from a wikipedian designing a flag, as was the case for flags for the Cholas, Cheras etc. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said the "self-made" was a bit ambiguous. I think we had best leave that one alone. - Sitush (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

All done for now. Will just wait for the last three file-links to go red. Thanks Sitush! Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No big deal. You should try cleaning out things like Category:Indian Hindus some time. I fiddle with that and related cats on occasion but the number of BLP violations is just soooo big. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Serenity Prayer :-) Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a serene personality, as you probably know by now. It would probably be quite easy to keep on top of that cat if there was a way to determine when articles were added to it. That failing seems to me to be one of the lesser-considered reasons why categorisation here is so arcane daft pointless. The standard watchlist is fine but it won't catch cat additions unless you're already watching the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I know MediaWiki:Bad image list exists. That's primarily for penises and such, and I don't really know the "rules", but if this kind of thing proves persistent - and I wouldn't rule that out - it might be a solution. There is probably (for good reason!) a lot of red tape involved though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am okay with the images existing on wikimedia commons as long as they are properly marked with the fictional tag. That way, the user (say a non-scholarly book publisher) can use the image, not as authentic representation of the dynasty flag, but as a (lay) "artistic impression". What is wrong is the use of these images on wikipedia, particularly without a bright and shiny disclosure of their dubious authenticity and provenance. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Martijn, I'm always pleased to see you here but you must stop sneaking up on me with weird and wonderful arcana like this ;) You know far too much about far too much. Abecedare, the problem with the flags staying on Commons is that, as Martijn intimates, they'll be back on en-WP articles in no time at all, and I'm not in the mood to add 100 or so more crap articles to my watchlist today. I think I'll just periodically click on the links above and repeat the rinse. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I was passing by, but it may have escaped your attention. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You should pass by more often if your special interest is the glorious imagery present in non-English insults ;) - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

that struck me as particularly funny, actually. Despite not even recognising the language, I could still identify it as a blocking offense. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI (since I forgot to ping you this time): Fictional flags at Vatasura's talk page. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are interested in non-fictional Misplaced Pages, I agree with your POV. I do not remember where, but I came across that some editors were stand for using fictional or illustrated work and claimed as "artistic" view. There are bulk of fictional work at Misplaced Pages and Commons. For eg: Special or fictional flags. Are you going to delete them all? I am sure that you can not do so since there are policy issue, strong obstacle, etc. People use autonomy on soft targets where no/less obstacle. I see you clean up work targeted particular community's fictional work. As I said I would agree with you POV if you act on entire non-fictional work. --Anton 04:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Kashyap

Hello,

I feel helpless. Misplaced Pages is the best source for any layman on a topic.And it is heartening to see ambiguous articles, wrong information and nessages spread through it. I would be more happy if the article is completely removed rather than spreading wrong information.The article, I do not know who wrote it or how it was posted on wikipedia.But, its wrong. "The Kashyap are a caste in India, sometimes referred to as a subcaste of boatmen.-Its not a sub caste of boatmen.Some people were fishermen and possibly used boats. The All-India Kashyap Rajput Mahasabha was a pressure group established in the period immediately preceding the 1941 census of British India to achieve recognition from the census authorities that the caste be recorded as Kashyap Rajput rather than by any other name.-This is correct

Communities that are related to the Kashyap by occupation in Uttar Pradesh include the Batham, Bind, Bhar, Dhimar, Dhinwar, Dhewar, Gariya, Gaur, Godia, Gond, Guria, Jhimar, Jhir, Jhinwar, Jhiwar, Kahar, Keot, Kewat, Kharwar, Khairwar, Kumhar, Machua, Majhi, Majhwar, Mallah, Nishad, Prajapati, Rajbhar, Riakwar, Tura, Turah, Turaha, Tureha and Turaiha. There were proposals in 2013 that some or all of these communities in the state should be reclassified as Scheduled Castes under India's system of positive discrimination; this would have involved declassifying them from the Other Backwards Class category. Whether or not this would happen was a significant issue in the campaign for the 2014 Indian general election.

Uttar Pradesh is a poor state. People do all sorts of petty jobs there.Why an article on wikipedia mentions only about Uttar Pradesh.Very strange.Gaur were herders,Prajapati and Kumhar were potters.And if there were proposals to disgrace a section of society by some corrupt Uttar Pradesh politicians.Why do you have to mention it on wikipedia, a source of knowledge.It is humiliating. Shallow, unclear information being posted.Cant you just simply remove that line.

Greatvirgo

@Greatvirgo:, this should really be discussed at the article talk page, not here. However, I've just reviewed the source for the boatmen statement and I agree that it is a bit confusing. I'm happy to remove that bit but someone else may revert me.

As for the rest, the problem is really that we need sources for the article. We can only write things based on what reliable sources say and, yes, that can sometimes perhaps seem to mean that some aspects are not mentioned at all. There really isn't much that we can do about this as a general principle but I would encourage you to look around for information that we could use in that article. If in doubt, mention the books/newspapers etc at Talk:Kashyap (caste) and wait for people to respond. I, for one, have that on my watchlist and so will see anything that you might say. - Sitush (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dabbing of Suryanvanshi

notified conflict on Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sial_tribe#Syal_caste_is_found_in_Jats.2C_Khatris_and_Rajputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.14 (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava

I find that you have removed important information on Bhargavas from the page and called them Vaishy again instead of Brahmans. i mentioned on page that they are Dhusar Brahmans not Dhusar Vaishys. Among Dhusars, both Brahmans as well as Vaishys exist. Also MLBhargava is a senior writer and he cannot be ignored. some talk of consensus on the page, how is it possible if all those who claim Bhargavas as Brahmans are blocked. Some editors have given several citations on Bhargavas being Brahmans, but you do not approve that and choose an unimportant citation as your base to call Bhargavas as Vaishys. This is wrong and non sense. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.7.194.39 (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please deal with this at the article talk page, not here. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Khukhrain

hey ssup, I think Sitush you removed a lot from khukrain article without specifying a detailed reason. I am going to revive some of the text. Thanks Mate Mayank.94 (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Mayank.94, the reasons (and there are many) are clearly visible here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In information that has been removed Hoary in that some of the useful contents were also removed in between.

Not going to restore all the text but that needed. thanks Mayank.94 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of usefulness, Mayank.94. The material you intend to restore: is it clearly backed up by informed, independent, reliable sources? ("Informed" here meaning "informed by recent academic research, not by received ideas".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Leave It Thanks Mayank.94 (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhargava

Bored of this. Next move?  Philg88  19:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have issued a formal sanctions notice via template but it seems that I did not. Someone has done that now. If no-one has responded to their latest comment by the time I wake up, I will do so. If they continue in the same vein after that, I'd be inclined to topic ban them for a few months. They seem to be pretty much a SPA anyway but just maybe they'll move to another area and do something useful. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted. And pleased to see EdJohnston is now on the case.  Philg88  21:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It will be better if you remove the page all together rather than perpetuating lies about a community on Misplaced Pages.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't do that because the subject is notable. @Philg88:, you'll notice that I have tried at the article talk page but they're still not getting it. - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems the only way forward here may be a formal topic ban. Thoughts Ed?  Philg88  08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

At User talk:Bhargavaflame the editor reminds us that he hasn't touched the article itself since mid-November. Though his user name and the language he uses ("perpetuating lies about a community") suggest it may be hard for him to edit neutrally on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing EdJohnston and Philg88. I think that Sitush and Kautilya3 will shortly stop replying to his messages just like I have. Bhargavaflame is spinning wheel and not contributing in building an encyclopedia. We can wait some more. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

I need your superior knowledge here to find a way forward with Sahito and Sahita. These are duplicates with one being the singular and one being the plural form of the name. Question is, which one is the correct target for the merge? Cheers,  Philg88  09:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We use the singular for caste/tribe article titles, which apparently means Sahito is the target. - Sitush (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.  Philg88  15:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

POV help

Hi sitush, I think your view is fairly neutral and I do not have much clue on how to balance this article, would request your help Shrikanthv (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That article has been a nuisance for ages. I doubt that it will ever be considered neutral. It has always struck me as being a very short route to a block or some other sanction. I'll take a look but I suspect that my presence will just raise the temperature. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I thought you are omnipresent on Misplaced Pages :-) -sarvajna (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Since your attention has already been drawn to this conflagration, a vote here would be appreciated (either way). Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

DRN posting

Sitush, I've reverted the posting to which you replied here as a violation of GRAPEVINE. You might want to also revert your response since it no longer makes much sense out of context, but that's your call. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Wasn't aware of that, but yeah. No idea what was going on there. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmin

Would I be bang out of order if I hatted that text above? Ritchie333 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have objected. I've done it myself now. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please take your own good advice - and please leave me alone

If you're planning on following me around and commenting about my comments, please don't. My comment on Neotarf's talk page was a simple, personal message to someone who's probably smarting right now. It was also almost a verbatim copy of something he/she posted on my talk page after I quit and was still smarting - which is what made the comment personal - between me and him/her. Now you've managed to take that little pat on the back off his/her page... for no good reason. Neotarf is banned. You're still here to edit. Leave it be, please.

And about your comment, That sounds like the situation is warfare? This reminds me of when you said on Jimbo's talk page that the name of the Gender Gap Task Force was "military." In fact, ironically, part of what you said in that comment applies here:

reading things that are not there an then labelling them as hostile....

Not everything is an act of war. How about you take your own advice about not reading things that aren't there and labeling them as hostile (or military, or warped, or misconceived). Please leave me alone. I'm not in a good place right now and I don't need your lecturing. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)