This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ryulong (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 5 September 2012 (→MrIndustry: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:03, 5 September 2012 by Ryulong (talk | contribs) (→MrIndustry: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Muhammad Arshad Khan
Hi Qwyrxian, you recently undeleted the Muhammad Arshad Khan article. Would it be possible to undelete Talk:Muhammad Arshad Khan too? I imagine there was some relevant content there, if it needed to be deleted in the first place :) Sionk (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I forgot--it's back. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Request for your feedback at Village pump
Hi Qwyrxian. I have a proposal at the village pump about introducing a color scheme to the text editor so it is easier for newer editors to differentiate between different kinds of syntax, particularly references. I'd welcome your feedback at the village pump. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.
Looks like you mistakenly delete the article instead of keeping per the close at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks--there's an AfD closing tool that I use, with all of the closing options listed, and I clicked Delete instead of Keep. I've restored the article and reclosed the AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs
How exactly was it a delete? 66+ independent sources from MTV, Hollywood Reporter, Glamour Magazine, Huffington Post, etc. And all YouTube links were removed. I'm confused by your idea of notable. --MrIndustry (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Because those sources don't verify that "unreleased Lana Del Rey songs" is a notable topic. For lists, you need to prove that the subject of the list itself has been covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources--not that the individual items on the list have. For example, I guarantee that I could find sources that verified the existence of, and probably even talked in detail, about a whole bunch of people named "John" living in New York. I could probably even verify hundreds of these. However, I could not, per WP:LISTN, create an article entitled "List of people named John living in New York" unless I could also provide references discussing the aggregate topic. Note that my comment is really just summarizing and putting policies/guidelines to the consensus established at that AfD (since Till specifically requested which policies applied). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That still doesn't make any sense. All these articles talk about Lana Del Rey's unreleased music, and sources such as Huffington Post, Entertainment Weekly, etc. think it's notable enough to write articles about this subject. There's not one single article from Huffington Post, etc. but multiple. It's not a one time thing. If this list can't be kept on Misplaced Pages then I'm confused as to why any of Category:Unreleased Songs are on Misplaced Pages.--MrIndustry (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and some of the sources were grouped songs, which would prove the point of Lana Del Rey's unreleased songs being the subject set of the article (in Misplaced Pages's terms). "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. " After reading this I'm really confused as to why this list was deleted because it 100% follows Misplaced Pages's WP:LISTN guidelines.--MrIndustry (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that as the closer I'm merely trying to line up what the consensus was on the discussion, and provide the policies and guidelines that coincide with the discussion since it was asked. Had a consensus at the article found that the list subject was notable, then I would have closed it as keep. The people arguing for deletion raised policy compliant answers, and those arguing for the article to be kept did not address the notability concerns, and rather simply asserted that individual items could be sourced.
- If you think I didn't adequately judge the consensus, feel free to take the decision to WP:DRV. Alternatively, you could attempt to take the sources you found and see if the information would be appropriate to add to some other related article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the consensus of the discussion was no consensus since we couldn't agree. I think the deletion should be reverted, editors should have time to find good sources for all of the songs and the article should be discussed again at a later point. teammathi 13:38, 27 August 2012 (CET)
- As I said, the requirement is not sources for each of the songs, its for the overall subject matter. Regarding the broader issue, consensus does not mean unanimity (as the page itself tells us). Particularly with reference to AfD discussions, consensus must be weighed with reference to policies and guidelines--otherwise, every article where someone said, "But I like it and its useful" would automatically be kept, even though policy says not to. As I said to MrIndustry, if you think I judged consensus incorrectly, you're welcome to take the matter to WP:DRV. While I believe that the arguments which were policy-compliant overall seemed to favor deletion, I freely admit to being fallible. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the consensus of the discussion was no consensus since we couldn't agree. I think the deletion should be reverted, editors should have time to find good sources for all of the songs and the article should be discussed again at a later point. teammathi 13:38, 27 August 2012 (CET)
Vandalism
An IP user is constanly vandalising Turkey. I told another sysop but I understand he is not online or too busy. Your intervention will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion review for List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs
An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. marie (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Tinchy Stryder → Kwasi Danquah III
Hi Qwyrxian how are you. The name that this person (Kwasi Danquah III) uses is his birth name of Kwasi Danquah III, as he is a businessperson and derives his income from the occupation of being a businessman and business magnate and from his companies that he owns, and not from being a part-time musician two to three months a year. The name Tinchy Stryder is what Kwasi Danquah III uses as a stage name when he only releases music two to three times a year, such as in the case of Sean Combs and the stage name P Diddy. There is a another pseudonym that Kwasi Danquah III uses which is "Star in the Hood" and named after his clothing company "Star in the Hood (company)", where else in another case, Sean Combs uses his first and second birth names "Sean John" for his clothing company. The point being made here is that the name that Kwasi Danquah III uses and prefers is his birth name Kwasi Danquah III, such as Sean Combs prefers to be called by his birth name Sean Combs, as he is a businessperson and he only releases music two to three times a year under the stage name P Diddy. I have requested a formal move on Misplaced Pages:Requested moves as you suggested. The title and correct title should be his birth name Kwasi Danquah III. I'am strongly pleading Qwyrxian, the correct title is his birth name Kwasi Danquah III. MarkMysoe (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Qwyrxian - this is a mess, check through Mark's contribs for other recent edits and page moves which change Tincy to Kwasi - against consensus. I have warned him for this and will block if he continues. GiantSnowman 09:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- MarkMysoe. Two things. First do not attempt to do a move, because you clearly don't know how, and messing it up messes up the attribution. Second, you need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I have, literally, zero (none, no, nada, 0) opinion on what the correct title of the article should be. Furthermore, I don't intend to weigh in on the discussion. But when various people disagree with a move/title change, it is absolutely necessary that you discuss the issue first before making major changes. Misplaced Pages requires collaboration, and when people disagree, we discuss until we get consensus (as best as we can).
- GiantSnowman, if you believe the refusal to discuss has reached the point of disruption, I trust you. I'll be off WP for at least 12 hours, so feel free to take whatever actions are necessary to protect the encyclopedia. MarkMysoe, please understand, when someone refuses to discuss an issue, we have no choice but to block them. It's time for you to discuss the issue. While the discussion is ongoing, do not move or attempt to move the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Block averted - for now at least - as there is a RM ongoing. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
European Youth Press
After adding around 50 resources--including resources from reliable sites like European Parliament, Council of Europe...--the wiki page was deleted. I'd like to inquire what is needed to be done in order to have the page published again. Is it possible to submit a draft you could revise before I publish it again?
I am new to Misplaced Pages and I would really like to create the page properly. And yes--I would like to create a new one because I really think an established organisation with 50.000 members and many large-scale projects deserves it. Especially as there's so many other (often smaller) youth organisations with similar/less developed pages that are still published (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/World_Esperanto_Youth_Organization, http://en.wikipedia.org/European_Free_Alliance_Youth, http://en.wikipedia.org/Jeunesses_Musicales_International, http://en.wikipedia.org/Pax_Christi_International)
Thank you for your answer!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasemajor5 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you could certainly work on a draft, and then I would be willing to review it when you're done. I have copied the article into your userspace, to User:Phasemajor5/European Youth Press draft. You can work on it there at your leisure. Some suggestions for improvement:
- The most important thing the article lacks--and the reason it was deleted--is a demonstration of notability. In general, per WP:GNG, notability is established by providing multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the organization in detail. Even though that article contains a lot of "references", they are almost all from the organization's members. That, by definition, is not independent. Similarly, the European Parliament reference is not independent, because it's actually the Parliament talking about its own event. What you should be looking for are newspaper articles or parts of books published by reliable publishers that talk about the organization in detail.
- Note, too, that references that only verify information about the constituent members in no way verify the notability of the parent organization.
- The amount of information on constituent members is excessive. This article should be about the umbrella organization, not all of the specific members. If the EYP is the notable entity, than the article needs to be about it.
- Related to #3, you definitely need to remove all of the links to the members organizations themselves. Those links do not meet our guideline on external links, because they, again, aren't directly connected to the subject, and aren't necessary for an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.
- Let me know if you have further questions, or if you want me to review a draft. Again, I recommend starting by taking out all of the excessive details, and then working from the ground up to verify the group's notability. Two final notes: the number of members itself does not effect notability (in a Misplaced Pages sense), and the existence of other articles is not relevant either. It's possibly those other articles you linked to should also be deleted; alternatively, it's possible that they have received the type of independent coverage necessary to verify notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Ranjit Singh
Shouldn't this article be fully protected? Torreslfchero (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct; I've adjusted the protection now. Thanks for noticing. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (2nd nomination) silly question
I read the close 3 times and it hit me. If the song is "unreleased" how can it be uploaded to YouTube? Dlohcierekim 13:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know; I assume "unreleased" means that it was never put onto an album or downloadable music site; and I'd further guess that the youtube videos are concert footage, either fan made or possibly even "officially" released as concert footage (but not as a song). Either way, it doesn't really effect the close. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- True. It just seemed nonsensical for singer to "not release" her music like that. Dlohcierekim 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala
Hi, if you can, could you pls have a look at Royal College Wayamba, Kurunegala. I think we have a sock puppet. Cossde (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Who's the master? The last spi filed on people editing related to Sri Lankan colleges is still pending and not really going anywhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Royal College Panadura
I am sorry to drag you into this dispute again, but Cossde has unilaterally moved the above article to Panadura Royal College even though I had objected in the past. I have started a new discussuion.--obi2canibe 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you objected, why didn't you participate in the RfC I started about a month ago? These Sri Lanka colleges have been having edit wars about the name for more than a year, and yet nobody wants to bloody well find the references and verification to actually decide on what the correct title is. We need to figure it out. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't participate in the RfC because I had already made my views clear in a number of discussions on the schools' talk pages. A RfC is for outside input. I agree that this should be sorted once and for all.--obi2canibe 20:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
For catching those pronouns I missed! Insomesia (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it was another editor on the talk page, but I'm glad it's fixed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably gone
As with several others who are considering their position - and some good ones such as Sodabottle who appear already to have given up - I am struggling to see the point any more. I think that I am gone. The continual dealing with puffery, reinventing the consensual wheel and well-intentioned do-gooders who simply do not understand the big problems and place undue faith in the goodness of human nature is just too much. We've had the occasional disagreement and the same can be said of others - Boing, Blade, Salvio, MatthewV etc - but none of that is significant because there is (I hope!) mutual respect regarding where this thing is going and for our various positions on specific issues. I hoped to be able to offer more, and more widely (LAncashire botanists!), but instead I am finding myself battling the same stuff, time and time again.
I'll probably be off for a few days, and I may not be back. My thanks to you, the others named above and those who I have omitted who really should have been name-checked - there are quite a few (Fowler&fowler, Regentspark, Drmies, Malleus and Spiffy come to mind). I wish you all well. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am very sorry to hear that and hope that you come back refreshed, or at least not so discouraged. I do appreciate your hard work. I hope that your week and weekend improve and that we see you back. Best regards. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just happened to notice this thread 'cause your talk still on my watchlist. I took a long wikibreak feeling the way you describe and came back refreshed. Hope that helps. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also very sorry to see you go. You do good work--better than most because you have a broad grasp of history and sourcing that helps you pinpoint when information is or is not useful. On the other hand, your good work often becomes scorned because so many people simply don't want good writing--they just want articles to reflect their own POV. I think you've been hampered by the fact that you've been working in a very contentious subject area that most en.wiki editors don't realize is contentious...and since there are so many nooks and crannies, you end up being the sole victim countless times. I'll send you an email in the next few days with more thoughts. In the meantime, no matter what, good luck and good health (as best as you can). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I too am very sorry to see you go. I too hope this is temporary, that you will return soon, recharged and refreshed, ready to do more battle with the obscurantist cretins that dog caste-related articles on India. I too will send you email soon. Meanwhile enjoy the respite (which in many ways I envy). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sitush, you have helped to improve several articels and you have also guided me in certain areas like citation, copy vio etc. I feel you should continue in guiding newcomers; I hope you will return after a few days, after forgetting all the "threats/arguments".Rayabhari (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I too am very sorry to see you go. I too hope this is temporary, that you will return soon, recharged and refreshed, ready to do more battle with the obscurantist cretins that dog caste-related articles on India. I too will send you email soon. Meanwhile enjoy the respite (which in many ways I envy). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also very sorry to see you go. You do good work--better than most because you have a broad grasp of history and sourcing that helps you pinpoint when information is or is not useful. On the other hand, your good work often becomes scorned because so many people simply don't want good writing--they just want articles to reflect their own POV. I think you've been hampered by the fact that you've been working in a very contentious subject area that most en.wiki editors don't realize is contentious...and since there are so many nooks and crannies, you end up being the sole victim countless times. I'll send you an email in the next few days with more thoughts. In the meantime, no matter what, good luck and good health (as best as you can). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just happened to notice this thread 'cause your talk still on my watchlist. I took a long wikibreak feeling the way you describe and came back refreshed. Hope that helps. Dlohcierekim 00:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Another wingnut
User_talk:71.233.208.112 He keeps changing radio station definitions with unconstructive edits. Redefining the established radio stations which serves the markets they do. His edits have been mostly reverted by myself, but also other editors have too. So far everything he/she's edited has been reverted to the correct format, and also been warned. I don't know what else to do with him, aside from keeping an eye on his edits and reverting all the poor editing. Can you take a look and see if there is anything that can be done about him. Thanks! NECRAT 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Eh...as you pointed out yourself, the edits aren't all wrong, some of them are just personal opinion or mal-formatted. Plus, it's coming very irregularly. Even if I blocked few days, xe probably wouldn't even notice, because he only edits once or twice a week. If it keeps up over the next couple of weeks, let me know and I'll try blocking. Meanwhile though, please try to actually communicate with the editor--explain what's wrong. Those templates wouldn't make sense to me if I was a new editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well he just keeps on doing it and it's getting more frequent now too. Other editors have reverted his nonsense edits now too. Special:Contributions/71.233.208.112. I've tried to reach out to him via his talk page, and he ignores it. NECRAT 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've blocked for 2 days. Let me know if the problem resumes after that. The IP's editing isn't that frequent, so I can't guarantee xe'll even notice being blocked, but more than that for what appear to be good faith changes (even if wrong) is too much to start. I can always reblock again for longer. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well he just keeps on doing it and it's getting more frequent now too. Other editors have reverted his nonsense edits now too. Special:Contributions/71.233.208.112. I've tried to reach out to him via his talk page, and he ignores it. NECRAT 03:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Help Needed
Hi.Thank you for your message in my talk page. Sitush was guiding me in wikipedia article creation/editing, in the areas of citation, copyright rules, notability. It will be of immense help for me if you guide/rectifiy/suggest changes in my edits. Recently I have created following articles(some of them biographies) and I request you to help me to suggest whether they meet "notability" standards; please review.
and also AFD improved by me -
Earlier, I remember you gave good suggestion about my improvement of article Mumtaz Begum. Thank you. -Rayabhari (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I can take a look at those; it will take me time, so I'll review them one by one, probably over the course of a week or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Ashok Gudigar
I've done some editing on Ashok Gudigar. The biggest problem was the use of "Online Bangalore" as a source. Anytime that you are considering pulling information from a website that isn't an online newspaper (or other similar source), be very suspicious about it. I would estimate that easily 98% or more websites do not meet WP:RS, and those that do tend to be in specialist fields like pop culture and computers. Looking around the Bangalore Online site, I saw that users could submit articles. This means it's basically an open wiki--anyone can submit info, as long as it's related to Bangalore. That means it's definitely not a reliable source. I removed some of the info associated with that site, and tagged the rest as needing citations. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am yet to know much about citations/sources. What you observed about "online bangalore" is true, I observed. I will try to provide more citations.
- My request to you is, whether this subject notable, being a living person biography?
thank you.-Rayabhari (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- He's definitely notable. First, he qualifies under WP:GNG, because he has been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Additionally, the fact that he's won both a national award and a state government award in his field (plus, it appears, possibly some other awards, too) definitely supports a claim of notability as an artist. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Eton Manor Boys' Club
Would you temporarily delete this redirect to make way to move this AfC submission which I am going to accept? I have expanded the article and believe it is sufficient for a separate article. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- All deleted. Feel free to move it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, you're also free to restore the revision of the redirect. SwisterTwister talk 14:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Gurukkal brahmins
Hi. Your reversion of Torchiest's tag removal at Gurukkal brahmins recreated a 2008 copyedit category, disrupting our backlog elimination efforts. There's no point copy editing an article when it's prodded -- likely a wasted effort. The tags reappeared when User:Iyar reverted to his own version dated 3 July 2009. I suggest that if the PROD fails, you might wish to restore the article either to the 3 July 2012 version by User:Qetuth or the 24 June 2012 (02:39) version by you. Regards. --Stfg (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't notice that there was a second intervening edit. I've reverted to the stub, and reprodded. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. I had a quick look on Google too, and I agree with the prod. --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
All we are saying is just mention the verifiable fact (I, BTW, gave sources too) or, as you others may call it, "assertion" that there are "segregation" (not to be confused with the word "caste") in other creeds of Indian society also. Mrt3366 07:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Other Clan Names (Titles)
I have commented on your query/concern pls have a look Talk:Pal-Kshatriya. Thanks --Jalaj Singh (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Geography of Afghanistan
After you blocked her she returned and is not only evading block but is vandalising the same page.--182.177.34.196 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note--I'm currently investigating at WP:ANI whether a rangeblock is feasible; if not, we may have to resort to semi-protection of the page, which is unfortunate, because it would mean you couldn't edit it either. I'll have to wait and see what at checkuser says regarding how busy the underlying range is. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for closing Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal#Requested_move
Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for closing Talk:Peter_III_of_Portugal#Requested_move.
After careful reading, of the discussion, the close, and WP:SOVEREIGN, I decided it was a very good close. You did well to not be swayed by the late pile-on. I, for one, had not considered everything that others had said.
You might improve the close by the following edit:
"However, Walrasiad made a strong case against the move, refuting the nomination and citing WP:SOVEREIGN.
nNot a single person raised an argument that is compliant with WP:SOVEREIGN, or, alternatively ..."
.
P.T. Aufrette did raise a good counterpoint (Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person), but in reference to WP:SOVEREIGN, Brazil is decidedly not Europe, and his did not sufficiently outweigh Walrasiad's case.
Thanks again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Pedro III of Portugal
Hello, Qwyrxian. I saw that you closed the move request on Peter III of Portugal. Your claim, I'm sorry to tell you, is flawed. You probably missed the point that in English sources the name of Portuguese and Brazilian monarchs (which are closely related to each other) are almost always kept in their native tongues. This is why we have Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, who is also King Pedro IV of Portugal, and not "Peter I" and "Peter IV". This is also why his grandson is widely known as "Pedro V" and not "Peter V". Or why we have Miguel I of Portugal and not "Michael I". I have no idea why you believe that we are ignoring Misplaced Pages rules and when they are clear that we should use what most sources say.
You went as far as to say "i.e., to substantiate the claims made that "Pedro" is the more common name, which no one showed any evidence for." This reveals that you did not bother to read the move request. I'm right now the most experienced editor on everything related to Brazilian/Portuguese history on Misplaced Pages and I wouldn't have asked for the move if that was what the sources tell. On my request I showed the numbers on Google books and several other editors, most of whom are part of the "Empire of Brazil task force" (and thus are people with interest on the subject) agreed with my point of view. I'm asking you to reconsider. --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- And another editor clearly showed that your numbers were wrong. I have a fair amount of experience with just how difficult it is to coax accurate results out of Google searches (the short version is, it generally requires a lot of negatives and hand counting). Your Google results cannot be correct, because you have numbers over 1000, and Googlehits are never accurate over that number; Walrasiad explained the flaw in your search, and after doing so, no one refuted his argument or offered a counter argument. This was the whole problem--you asserted a claim, but your evidence was obviously flawed (as the other editor pointed out). Others supported your claim, but provided no evidence. A requested move always defaults to no move unless consensus is strong to show the current title is wrong, and the consensus is soundly based in policy. As an additional point, you have the unfortunate burden of having to prove your point extra strongly, because WP:SOVEREIGN says that if you can't determine which term is more common (i.e., if they're approximately equal), then we use the anglicized form. So per the guideline, you have to demonstrate that a preponderance of sources support his birth name, or find some sort of argument to show why the guideline is inapplicable in this case (the latter is actually nearly impossible, since this is exactly the case the guideline is written for). All you need to show is that the data clearly supports your position, and get people to agree that it does. But if you cannot do so, you cannot simply assert that the majority of sources use your preferred name. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- FactStraight said: "Having re-considered my !vote based on revised data submitted by Walrasiad, below, I continue to support this move per the arguments, also below, of Necrothesp and P.T. Aufrette." P.T. Aufrette said: "We already have Pedro I of Brazil and Pedro II of Brazil, and common usage seems to be similar for Portugal. Indeed, it would be incongruous to say Pedro I of Brazil but not Pedro IV of Portugal, since they are one and the same person. The first name 'Pedro' is by now quite familiar to English speakers in general contexts, which probably drives the modern usage of 'Pedro' rather than "Peter" for the sovereigns.". If some us ignored ignored Walrasiad was because he is a troublesome editor who once reported an administrator and several editors at the ANI because they disagreed with him on a move request. It doesn't make sense that we have Pedro IV of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal and at the same time Peter I of Portugal and so on. You're incorrect when you say that my arguments are wrong because one editor said so. Since you opted to ignore that Misplaced Pages says that we should use what most sources say as well as the opinion of several editors (many of whom are highly experienced in the subject being discussed) I'd like to ask you to reopen the move request and let the discussion continue. --Lecen (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is disappointing; there clearly is a consensus to move the page. What happens at these move discussion is that participants hostile to anything non-English scream bloody murder at every move request and toss worthless ghits numbers about. SOVEREIGN is a crap guideline that is biased towards a POV; many guidelines are. Those motivated are the LOCALCONSENSUS that built them, and once they've a wall in place, they fight tooth and nail any suggestion that it be changed. Happens all over this benighted project. Most editors don't care to get involved in such insipid rule-mongering, so endless regressive rules impede reasonable improvements. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Leica M Monochrom "notability"
Hi, I think it is time to revisit the Leica M Monochrom notability issue. OriumX (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Bhati
I wonder if you'd mind keeping an eye on Bhati, and perhaps acting if necessary. We've had a registered editor adding unsourced material (with puffery), and after I reverted we've now had an IP adding similar material sourced to unacceptable sources - I've commented on the Talk page. (I'm winding down towards a Wikibreak, so I won't be able to spend much time on it or any India-related articles) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation! Ncboy2010 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
MrIndustry
How do you mark it as a draft because he clearly has not?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)