User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Firefox 4

In Firefox 4, the dropdown "history list" to which you referred on WT:TW is still there: it is accessible by right-clicking on the back/forward buttons, as it always has been. I hope that persuades you to upgrade to the latest and greatest... — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm using Ubuntu and cannot upgrade to v. 4, and I believe that this applies to the Mac version also. Both are stuck on v. 3.6.17. As a consequence, a lot of what was useful in Twinkle has stopped working. This is even after noting the "workround" at WT:TW. I am a little miffed but, hey, it gives me the opportunity to test my memory with uw tags etc all over again. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, the issue has been resolved for a few hours now. Bypass your cache to get the updated script. Amalthea 11:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried that about 30 minutes ago. Will try again. Thanks for the comment. - Sitush (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Odd, the fix was made at 7:38 UTC, and I haven't heard any other complaints. Amalthea 11:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just worked now. Not sure what happened there but I restarted FF. Perhaps some interference with one of the many add-ons I have running here? No worries, though. I am a very happy bunny again :) - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Working fine here, too. Good to hear some good news today. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and just in time too. I need to work out how to use 3RRN now! Plus, he's just accused me of removing the cite even though I haven't edited for 12 hours or os. - Sitush (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR has to be done by hand, I think. But be very careful while you count reverts. Actually, i see that Elen of the Roads just fully protected the page; not sure if it's worth reporting now. Since the point of blocking is to prevent disruption, and the page is fully protected so disruption is impossible, it might not be worth the large amount of effort 3RRNB takes. But, it's up to you. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she jumped in there after I posted here. Did you see this ? That is an outright lie, and there is no other way I can phrase it. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

response to your request

moved from my user page Hi, i appreciate your message and of course i accept the tone was alarming to say the least. I was very baffled as to why all my articles are deleted so instantaneously. I feel my attack was just as the person who deleted my article did so without suggesting improvements. The users lack of judgment reflects a few minority who deter new users like myself from attaining membership. Again your message was enlightening and positive. I do believe it was wrote with a pure heart. So, thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.izzo25 (talk • contribs)

Alright. If you're having difficulty with article creation, there are a few things you can do. You should probably read Wikipedia:Your first article, which has a lot of introductory info about Wikipedia. You may also want to try creating the article at Articles for creation instead of creating it directly yourself--this will allow another editor to help you through the process. However, given the names of the two articles you created, which I believe are both songs by Bangs, there actually isn't anything you could do to improve the articles, because those videos can't have articles on Wikipedia. See, one of our fundamental guidelines is that we only have articles on notable subjects. Generally, that means that other people have written about the subject in detail in independent, reliable sources. Neither of those two videos meet that criteria. In fact, I started a deletion discussion to have Bangs (hip hop artist) deleted for the same reason--this rapper has never been discussed in detail in reliable sources, has not released music that has charted, and, in general, hasn't met the criteria for establishing the notability of musicians that can be found at WP:MUSIC. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask me here, so long as you ask them politely and without attacking me or other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello it has been quite a while since my last response. Again feel free to nominate me as a user to have my account deleted, these threats you make are becoming too mundane. You know the routine, if you feel that me exerting my freedom of speech to the fullest you can ask the UN to insert a clause for you on their Human rights article. Ideally you can edit out that page on Wikipedia or you can write to Wikipedia about all my alleged poor traits. I'm going to write how I feel on my page if you have a problem, sue me. H.izzo25 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)h.izzo25

I have no desire to have your account blocked, nor have I ever expressed such a desire. I do want to help you edit according to our policies and guidelines, but that's not a threat. Also, please note that you have no freedom of speech here. Wikipedia is a privately owned website, and the owners can choose to allow or not allow anyone they want to post. In the case of the Wikimedia Foundation, they have given a lot of the right to make those decisions to regular users, who codify best practices in policies and guidelines. Freedom of speech simply means that (in the US), the government can't stop you from making most kinds of public speech. But you have no right to compel a private entity to publish your words. Just like you can't walk into the New York Times and say "You must publish this article I wrote, because I have freedom of speech", you can't come on Wikipedia and say that you can create any articles you want in any style you want and demand that they be electronically published (or not deleted, as was the case with a few of your articles). If you want to keep contributing to Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to. If you need help figuring out how to do that, I would be more than happy to assist you. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding reversion of science edits

I noticed that you reverted my edits because of a policy. I am not aware of this policy. Can you provide me with a wikireference? Thanks. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not actually in a policy/guideline. I adopted the practice from seeing other editors use it. However, if you look at the "citation needed" docs (see Template:Citation needed), there's a line that says, "For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}". The point is that the one big box for the section serves the needed purpose: to tell readers that the information below isn't sourced and therefore may not be reliable, and to tell editor/readers that this is a section which out to get some sources, or it may, eventually, be removed. Furthermore, the number of tags you added seems excessive to me--we wouldn't necessarily need an inline citation on every single line there. For instance, definition lines don't actually need a citation, especially if there is a wikilink to an article that itself contains more information, such as the line about scientific misconduct. This latter point is a debatable one, as there's no firm agreement about exactly how much verification we need (although almost everyone agrees in principle that we aren't Veripedia, a now defunct wikipedia spin-off that did require every single statement to be verified). 00:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. I don't mind you revert an edit if you think the reversion is an improvement but do temper the language in the comment box. When you use words such as "should" or "should not," it automatically conveys an enforcement of policy or a breach of policy. This is especially the case when an edit decision is "arbitrary" or subject to "interpretation." I think we have been through this before. I do try to follow the spirit of policies whenever I can. I am not going to revert back the edit as I think it is not worth the effort. I inserted the inline tags with the intention of trying to make it easier for whoever is interested in finding a reference for those lines. This is after all a science article and every statement counts. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because something isn't written into guidelines or policy doesn't mean that it doesn't have persuasive/rhetorical force on Wikipedia. In fact, some people take the position that precedent/standard behavior comes first, and is only codified into policy later (exceptions, of course, apply, like those policies that are handed down by the WMF). Apologies if you find my wording confusing, but I believe that "should" is the appropriate word here, as I intended it to mean "The practice you are behaving in is not matching with community norms, so I'm undoing it". But I'll try to use more precise wording when I edit that article so that my meaning is clear for you. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point here. "Community" is exactly right. With the exception of administrators, there is very little hierarchy here. We are in a community of equals and I think we should exercise a little more tact when communicating with each other, especially on non-content issues like rules and policies. Bear in mind that I've been editing here for quite a while now. I don't mind receiving feedback or corrections from time to time. Personally, I don't care about the revert. That is not the issue. What I take issue is that you keep giving the impression that you and your "interpretation" of Wikipedia policies/standards/practices represent those of the entire community and that you see it as your right/duty to enforce them onto other editors. If this is how you communicate with other people, then you should not be surprise when another person has something to say about this. I mean, just read your last statement that you intended to convey to me out loud to yourself, "The practice you are behaving in is not matching with community norms, so I'm undoing it." That sentence was much worst than the previous comment. Is this how you talk to people in general? Like before, I'm asking you once again, "Just who the hell do you think you are?" Are you a disciplinarian? Do you go around disciplining people for their "behavior" because they do not "confirm" to "community norms?" Which community? Yours? I am just perplexed by this very nit picky and slavish adherence to policies and rules. Moreover, I am perplexed that you seem to be primarily interested in interpreting and enforcing "community norms" rather than editing, creating, or improving content. Last I checked, this is an encyclopedia, not some Maoist organization. You seem to forget that these policies are "guidelines" and are not meant to force onto other editors (for example, see point 5 of what BRD is not). I suggest you read these policies carefully and think of the spirit of these guidelines, i.e., their main function and purpose. Also, there are editors with different preferences and styles, which is all the more why I encourage you to be a little more flexible when communicating with other editors, especially when it comes to non-content issues such as Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I really do hope that our future interactions do not continue on like this. I've nothing more to add. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

An alternative plan

I can see that there is some difficulty with your mentee producing copy. It is costing you a lot of keystrokes. Also, I can see some list articles brewing in the sandboxes. That is perhaps something the mainspace doesn't quite need. Might I make another suggestion?

First, remove any disputable content from the India dowry material in the sandbox, so that what remains can enter the mainspace. This will show fruits of his labour, and give closure as a mini-project completed. Otherwise, I fear that it could stall, and become a failed venture.

Second, and this is the really constructive bit: There are zillions and zillions of India-related articles that need formatting. Although somewhat menial, making such content presentable would be really helpful. I know your mentee cares greatly about India, and its proper representation at Wikipedia. Fixing up these articles is a much-needed service, and would be good practice for him.

I recommend this because I feel that M will eventually become discouraged producing content off-mainspace that is subject criticism. The time M spends at Wikipedia must result in some sort of contribution for him and to the mainspace. Also, from an economics point of view, how much energy have you and M put into this? What gain has the mainspace received?

What is our goal? For M to happily contribute for years to come. To mitigate the hours we all lost. To improve Wikipedia.

I think we would all be happy to keep an eye on his contribs. I suggest getting him into the mainspace with the condition that his edits are limited to repairing formatting errors from other editors.

What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A plausible idea. I could accept a situation where he added content or repaired content to mainspace articles, as long as, at the beginning, he first showed me some of the edits. One concern is that on the Dowry sandbox talk page, he stated that he doesn't use full citations because it's too difficult for new editors; thus, implying, to me, that cleanup isn't actually his bag. But I can propose it. It may well be that he is just busy with "real life" (whatever that is); I'll figure out how to phrase it, see if anything new is forthcoming on his end in a day or so, then propose it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that he will be interested in detail. His appears to be a broad-brush personality. However, anything to resolve this situation simply has to be worth a go. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about allowing the addition of content. Formatting is a safe bet, as any effort would likely result in some sort of improvement to the article. I'm talking about:

• Removing unneccesary bold, extra line spaces, etc.
• All caps --> sentence/title case
• Spelling
• Adding/removing links where necessary
• Little errors like spaces after full stops and commas
• The list goes on

Maybe allowing 10 or 20 such edits and then stopping for you to review would be a good plan.

He wouldn't need to touch references. But, he could take those bare urls we see and just dump them inside a < ref > < / ref>.

Does he know about reflinks? It doesn't get easier than that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually even know about reflinks (!). I mean, I used it once, but didn't find it as helpful as I expected. I should try it again, though, because I do see others using it. For me, I find using the pop-ups from advanced editing works fairly well, but maybe I'm just being a luddite. But, anyway, your point about focusing on formatting first may be a good point; I'll ask him soon if he's interested. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reflinks can be quite handy when cleaning up. I run it & then go back and convert to cite templates if there is no standard format already in place. It is a quick way to get titles etc and often does a reasonable job, although I do tend to click-through to check for myself. Glutton for punishment, me ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The POV title tag

I shall not waste much time on discussing the tag; let's just concentrate on the mediation process. STSC (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Creatingabetterworld

Hi Qwyrxian, you might not believe it but actually I'm not a robot, I'm a real human too. ;) See my reply to your comment on that talk page. De728631 (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Kshatriya

I and some others have provided good refs concerning the Kshatriyas of Tamilnadu. Please check yourself the refs i have provided from the beginning and make your own opinion instead of relying on what others say. Thank you.Rajkris (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will provide my conclusion on tamil kshatriya talk page asap.Rajkris (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will definitely look carefully and in detail and your response. On the references, though, for one, I don't have access to any offline refs, nor am I likely to have time to look at the online refs in detail; furthermore, I do trust Sitush's ability to analyze what sources say. However, if there are specific places where you think xe has misinterpreted a source, please do point it out, and I'll take a closer look (as I'm sure Sitush will as well). I'm going to add a note to the talk page saying that we're not rushing on this given that you've indicated you plan to take some more time to prepare. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Indian protests against black money

The title, the subject matter and content, the layout and the expertise of a supposedly new user in doing a shedload of redirects etc make me a little suspicious of this. It has the hallmarks of being by someone I have come across recently who created a batch of "2011" Indian articles & a lot of stubs. ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is definitely not a new user--the first article contains too many markers of an experienced user (especially the inclusion of templates and infobox). Determining the exact identity is trickier. At the moment, unless you're seeing something more damning than I am, my feeling is that the best step is to wait for more editing to see if there is a clearer pattern. Another user already asked about the redirects; perhaps s/he will respond. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am (regretfully) thinking of possibly opening an SPI but want to double-check the policy etc first. If I am correct then I will be very disappointed, but the situation also fits in with a sudden drop of activity elsewhere due to "real life" intervening. If I open the SPI then I have effectively blown AGF ... but I'm not sure how much AGF I've had about this person for a few weeks now, so perhaps it does not matter. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Done it, sorry. You are probably offline and the number of articles is rising quickly. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Maheshkumaryadav. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I left a "human" message with Creatingabetterworld, asking them to at least temporarily stop article creation. I'm certain that the person is not a new user, but not certain that it's Maheshkumaryadev. Off for the night now. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. I rather thought that you had already clocked off for the night. Had I known otherwise then I would have consulted you further, as the mentor. However, the number of articles was beginning to escalate. Let's hope that it is not him. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine--I just hopped on one last time before bed. I would have given the same lack of input; I'm sure it's not a new user, but I'm not sure it's Mahesh. Given that two other users think it likely, a checkuser is probably in order. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, either. Nor, I think, are the other two who have weighed in. It is not a loudly quacking situation but there is a muted noise about it. I left what I hope is a fair note on MKY's talk page. I will follow it up with a further apology if it turns out that I am wrong. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:EL

You removed a citation from the Ruggero Santilli claiming it violated WP:EL. It doesn't. Per EL: This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. The link I added was a citation supporting Sentilli's relationship to the company - an otherwise unsourced assertion. Rklawton (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Do you mind if I put it into full "cite website" ref format? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. If I'm in a hurry, I skip that step and hope a gnome will improve upon it if I forget to get back to it. Bad habit. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can fight my own battle

I don't need you to speak to Captain Screebo for me. I can speak for myself. Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not mean to offend; I will offer no more advice on the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The mess

Based on the information you had at the time, you made the right choice to mentor M. I'm sorry he wasted your time, and betrayed your trust. That sucked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ban vs block

What's the diff? He's gone and cannot come back. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference is twofold. First, on an indef block, any admin can unblock him at any time, simply by being persuaded he's improved; on a ban, the issue must be raised to the community or to ArbCom. Second, on a ban, any edits that we identify as coming from a sock of his are to be instantly reverted without any discussion. So if a clear sock of his comes back and splits up an article, we don't need to start some sort of complicated merge discussion; instead, we just revert, block, and ignore. We don't have to spend time judging the quality of the edits because, by definition, all edits of a banned user are unwanted. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sold. Let's ban him back to the stone age. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in. I am always confused a ban and a block. Please educate me my confusion. You said "any edits that we identify as coming from a sock of his are to be instantly reverted without any discussion". What policy is based on the claim? I think WP:Ban, WP:Block, and WP:Sockpuppet are too ambiguous for me. I mean I will be happy if we can revert all the sockpuppet's edit as a violation of WP:BAN. Thank you in advance. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A fair question. Note that I'm not an admin, and am just explaining this to the best of my ability. But here's how I understand the issues. A block is simply a prevention from being able to edit; technically speaking, any admin can block any user, although they are only allowed to do so in certain circumstances--specifically when the user violates a behavioral policy, like WP:Vandalism, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, etc. Blocks can be be of a specific duration (4 hours, 4 days, even months to a year), or they can be indefinite. Indefinite blocks are not "infinite" blocks--they simply don't have a set duration. Sometimes, for instance, a person may be blocked "indefinitely" until such time as they show that they understand why what they did is wrong and will stop it. Mahesh, for instance, was indefinitely blocked at one point about a month ago until he agreed to stop creating new articles; that block ended up being lifted in about 4 hours. However long a block is, it is only supposed to be used to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, never to punish a user. This is why, for example, if someone violates 3RR once, but doesn't do it again, and no one notices for awhile (like a day or more), the user will probably not be blocked, because there is no actual disruption to prevent. Of course, this is an ideal--people do get blocked for punishment all the time, but they're not supposed to. The length of a block depends on what the person did.

Currently Mahesh is blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Now, there are many instances where someone makes sockpuppets, gets blocked, but is then later able to appeal the block or have it expire, and go back to editing normally. This usually happens when a new user makes a sockpuppet to evade a block, but didn't really understand that this isn't allowed, or when a user makes multiple accounts for purposes but is only slightly disruptive. If that user can explain, clearly, why what they did was wrong, they are likely to be able to be unblocked; of course, if they break the policy again, they'll likely be reblocked for longer, possibly indefinitely.

This actually circles nicely into another aspect of blocks--any block may be lifted by any admin at any time. Users are able to appeal blocks either by placing an unblock template on their page, by emailing a mailing list, or by emailing the blocking admin directly. Whether or not an admin should unblock is trickier; information is available at WP:Unblocking, but it is intentionally vague and unclear. Again, not an admin, but the way I read it is that its up to the admin reviewing the unblock request to evaluate the user's response, and decide if they have actually learned what they needed to learn so that no more disruption will occur. Usually, they're supposed to also contact the blocking admin (sometimes blocking admins explicitly state that they allow anyone to overturn or alter the block); and if the unblock is at all controversial or being discussed on a WP:AN or WP:ANI, the user should only be unblocked by consensus of the users involved in that discussion.

Oddly enough, we cannot just revert the edits of a blocked user simply because the are a blocked user. We can, of course, revert them if they violate policy for some other reason. Of course, if that user is caught socking, their block length will be extended, and they may eventually be banned if the don't stop socking.

And thus, to banning. Bans may not be imposed by individual admins (with the exception of topic bans related to articles under discretionary sanctions. Rather, bans can be imposed by the community (through a ban discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, like we're doing with Mahesh right now), by ArbCom, by Jimbo, and by the Office. A banned user may not edit Wikipedia. Period. Any and all edits of a banned user can and should be removed immediately, on sight, no questions asked. Yeah, if they just correct a spelling error, and we later found out they were a banned editor, we'd probably ignore it. But even good faith content added by banned editors should be removed, because the whole point behind a ban is You are no longer wanted here. Also, bans may only be lifted by community consensus or by ArbCom--they cannot just be lifted by an uninvolved admin.

Of course, after I went to all the effort of typing all of that, when I was looking something up, I found out that there's already a nice, well-organized table that explains the difference: WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. So, yeah...I think Mahesh needs to be banned, because if/when he comes back socking, the edits should be deleted immediately, no discussion. And he needs to understand that what he did (agreeing to a set of conditions to learn how to improve, then very deliberately and intentionally creating a sock to evade those conditions) means he is no longer welcome here. Now, to be fair, I fully admit that I'm emotionally involved in this--I feel personally affronted by the evasion, and I personally consider him no longer welcome. Luckily, a ban can only be imposed by the community, so my hurt feelings alone can't unfairly hurt Mahesh if the community thinks he can be saved. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I consider the mediation to have proceeded relatively well for a while up until the past few days, do you agree? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, a relevant step forward is to have your feedback on my feedback on Phoenix's search results. These are quite related to the extensive searches you've done before. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

PROD vs. AfD

AfD instead of prodding might be a safer bet. Last time, others came by and unprodded on the grounds of "not uncontroversial". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me; if they do, I'll just AfD then. To be honest, I'm hoping to avoid the effort of an AfD if possible; while the situation is pretty clear to us after discussion already on CCR, I know it will be a bit of work to make sure people see the logic in an AfD. But, I'll do it if necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edits at DontDateHimGirl.com

Hello: The reversion you performed, effectively re-doing a content removal by ErrantX which, while understandable, was made with haste and damaged readable context within the article. I'd ask you review my comments and additional citations here: User_talk:ErrantX#Re:_Edits_at_DontDateHimGirl.com

regards, --HidariMigi (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(copied from User_talk:ErrantX#Re:_Edits_at_DontDateHimGirl.com:)

(HidariMigi asked me on my talk page to comment here, since I also reverted the edit) HidariMigi, I see you're pretty new here, which explains the fairly common confusion over how the idea that "Wikipedia is not paper" works. While it is true that, since we have no space limitations, we can theoretically include everything, in practice, we do not; furthermore, other policies contain what we may or may not include, such as WP:NOT and WP:DUE; and, where those policies/guidelines are not explicit, collective (collaborative) editorial judgment comes into play. In this case, I do believe, at least for the second paragraph (about DontDateHerMan) falls under WP:UNDUE. The site was never created; in fact, never came close to being live. Since it did generate some press, including some information about it is okay, but including a full, separate section gives undue weight. It makes it seem like that (non-existant) spin-off is somehow of equal importance to the actual site that did exist. So, perhaps we could agree on a single sentence that could replace that whole section, focusing on the best sources (probably the NYT, maybe others, but not About.com, which is never a reliable source, or the Alexa rating, which is, frankly, nearly meaningless). The best place to work out such a sentence would be at the article's talk page, rather than here on ErrantX's personal talk page. The part about membership and defamatory information seems extraordinarily undue, since that's the rule for practically any website requiring membership (and, the defamatory part is true about almost all websites allowing open posting). Now, of course, WP:UNDUE is a matter of interpretation; it could be that other editors disagree; the best way to find out is at the article's talk page. I'll start a section there now to kick off the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting there. However, you might want to revise your initial impression that I'm "pretty new here" -- had you checked, you would have seen that not only am I not new, this account's first contributions were 3 months before your own, in July 2008. And prior to this one, I had an account dating to four or five years earlier. So I'm well familiar with WP policy and norms, having been involved in writing some of them myself. In this particular case, I brought up the "Not Paper" essay because ErrantX's explanation that he believed the first removed section was "irrelevant to an encyclopaedia" -- I contend that not only is that untrue, but that the section is the basis of the site's controversy-- and critically, could not be synthesised into "Members are able to anonymously" (which is already stated in the lede sentence.)

In reading your points, it appears that you may not have actually reviewed some of the sourcing or fully wrapped your head around the site's (initial) purpose. Yes, nearly all online forums and venues have a level of anonymous posting; however, that particular site promoted its anonymity as an avenue of creating a database of dating gone awry-- listing real names, photos and various personal information, with no adequate means of verification or removal of defamatory info, effectively making it a revenge-oriented site. This is the crux of why it received so much media coverage, and why it actually had a highly-publicized lawsuit in which the EFF weighed in.

In regards to the second deletion about the abortive launch of "DontDateHerMan," the discussion could certainly be shortened; it had, in fact, been a single sentence when first noted, but the IP of a now-banned SPA editor removed it claiming the source was incorrect. I expanded it using the primary source which provides context, but could be additionally sourced to news articles of its reported launch (which was widely reported in articles of the period.) I pointed to the About.com posting which had noted that Yahoo Buzz listed a spike in searches for "Dont Date Her" in August 2007 -- that's not for citation, but as evidence that in 2007, the site was once again being promoted for launch.

I'm not sure where you saw an Alexa ranking cited, as I did not do so. The usership claims were based on ones made by the site's founder in news articles -- but are not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article. They were to counter the impression that the site was "insignificant."

Finally, thanks also for taking the time to add to the article's discussion. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Your offer to mentor Mahesh was impressive. You invested your own time and effort in the hope of helping somebody else become a better contributor. It might not have worked out in the end, but that was not your fault; even when things went wrong, you were diligent and well-spoken. I think your actions deserve respect, and a little bling. bobrayner (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• I second that. You were great. I was going to barnstar you, but now I would just look like a copy-catter. Well done, my friend. A noble effort. You have all the characteristics of an admin.....except for the obvious insanity. That, you will acquire, over time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the kind words. I hope the problem has been solved, though I worry that, in fact, we'll need to watch out for future "better world creating" socking. And I guess I'm going to have to take a swing at RFA one of these days. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and appreciated. During RfA questions and answers, remember to answer the question: "Are you currently insane?" with, "No. But I will be within a month.", and you're a shoe-in.

As for the socking, yes, it's possible. But, we know the M.O. and well. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

about Under Armour

About Under Armour - if u can edit like i did just as needed, it will be awesome from u. --109.66.214.99 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Even if you found a source for that meets WP:RS, it wouldn't belong in the article, because it's trivial which brand of clothes someone wears--it is not appropriate encyclopedic info. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Chandigarh Capital Region

If we can decide the fate of Talk:Chandigarh Capital Region, then we can pretty much wrap up User:Anna Frodesiak/Silver sandbox. There remains one or two non-Chandigarh Capital Region-related items there, but if we can sort out the CCR ones, then we can paste silver into a collapsebox at M's talk, and move on from this tragedy. Best wishes to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and close it out--there is no consensus on what to do there, and I don't expect there to necessarily be one soon, and this lack of consensus seems to be based on a legitimate disagreement unrelated to the initial creation/creator of the page. No reason to keep Silver open for that, since the discussion seems to have moved past M's involvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Close Silver when ever you want to, Anna. It has been of tremendous use and your initiative in setting the thing up in the first place is much appreciated. Re: the CCR article discussion, for some reason this one fell off my radar - I'll read through it and comment soon. Ping me if I appear to have forgotten, as I appear to have gotten myself into another Indian article pickle. Will my "defunct engineering companies of Manchester" scheme ever progress further, I sometimes wonder.

Q, I am sorry that things have worked out as they now appear to have done, but no-one can deny the effort that you put in. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing silver now would result in a few items falling into an oubliette in Wikipedia. Articles, like List of Indian politicians convicted of crimes for example, should not be allowed to go that way.

I will transfer silver to M's talk into a collapsebox, and hopefully we can boot the rest of the pink of the list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Issue regarding merge

I'm a liitle confused here. Do you support/oppose/stay neutral about the merge of Ramlila ground protests? If you support the merge, please list your vote in the same format as others. Please. GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

You got me thinking. So, I looked more closely. I saw edits that were reverted, and he put them back without undoing. He added the exact same info by hand, it seems. That says to me that it's possibly some strange person, adding something from some obscure physical source, and maybe not a vandal. Why he doesn't respond to userpage talk? It could be anything. Maybe he's an autistic in an institution. Who knows? So, I wrote to several TV stations, showing them the additions, most of which are slogans used during the 70s and 80s. Hopefully they reply. I will keep you posted.

Sorry not to use xyr, etc., to neutralize the gender. I haven't quite figured all that out. But, I like it. I actually wrote to Webster's and Oxford last year proposing a neutral pronoun. Someone replied with "Hey baby, like the suggestion. What say you and me get together and swap a little dialogue, hint, hint." Now, I am obviously suing them and their accursed organizations. Kidding. I really did write, and they replied with something like "You're not the first to suggest this. Maybe one day." Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How does one propose a neutral pronoun to a dictionary? It has to exist as a word before it appears there, surely? Or do I need to read up on the definition of dictionary? And if so, in what? - Sitush (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Go to their website. There is a link to bug them about new words. Really. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I think that link exists to satisfy the cranks of this world. <g> Although as a Cambridge graduate I don't have much respect for anything from Oxford! Did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is how to suggest a new word for Merriam's and Oxford. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that xe is using a source for part of it--it's a self-published web page with absolutely no sources to back it up. Myself, Deconstructthis, and Neutralhomer all found it at one point or another, and all agreed it was likely the source and not even close to reliable. It may even be the same person who made that page as is doing these edits. Unfortunately, I can't find the page now, because Wikipedia and its mirrors now occupy the first half dozen google hits for similar phrases, and I doubt I'll be able to find it. One other guess we had is that the user once saw "Hey, Station X used a slogan from 1982 to 1983 that was a localized version of an NBC page; I bet every single NBC affiliate in the country did the same thing, so I'm going to add it to all of their pages."

Regarding the pronouns, I use different ones in different situations. On Wikipedia, I use xe/xem/xyr. When I teach I students in Japan, I teach them that they have to use he or she/him or her/his or her (although they should always use they/them/their whenever they can, just to make their lives easier). In my own writing, I either alternate paragraphs between he and she (a style often found in research about teaching), or always use she (as a feminist move). One warning about Wikipedia, though: there's a fairly prolific editor, named Xe; I once confused another editor because they thought that when I said "xe" I meant User:Xe, when I actually meant "he or she". As for getting the dictionary to change, there's a great quote on Gender-neutral pronoun, from the American Heritage Book of English Usage:

Like most efforts at language reform, these well-intended suggestions have been largely ignored by the general English-speaking public, and the project to supplement the English pronoun system has proved to be an ongoing exercise in futility. Pronouns are one of the most basic components of a language, and most speakers appear to have little interest in adopting invented ones. This may be because in most situations people can get by using the plural pronoun they or using other constructions that combine existing pronouns, such as he/she or 'he or she'.

Qwyrxian (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronouns Interesting. I love your initiative. To see global English neutral pronouns, I would pay, honestly, about... let me think....about.... about $350 bucks, maybe a bit more, to change the planet in that regard. Okay, $400.

TV I just don't know. It's so strange. You've seen User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. It just doesn't make sense. It's an enigma within an enigma within one of those Russian dolls that gives me the creeps. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:Edits at Feroze Gandhi

then you should take note of those muslim users as well who are trying to post negative things about Feroze Jehangir gandhi they are trying to make him a muslim , they think Feroze in muslim name they didnt know about persian language which is originally language of Parsi and not muslims. According to them then even Homi Jehangir Bhabha will also be a muslim. so take note of this to ,muslim users are faking info even though we have posted reference where his — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

???I've never edited that article. Note that there are over 3 million articles on Wikipedia; a very large portion of them contain information about living people. If you believe someone is violating WP:BLP, talk about it to the person on their talk page and the article's talk page, just like I did to you. If you don't get any clear answer, and still believe there is a violation, go to WP:BLPN. I just looked real quickly on the article, I don't see anything in there about him being Muslim; it lists his religion as Zoroastrianism, and the word Mulsim doesn't appear anywhere. I looked around the history in a variety of places, and don't see Muslim there, either. If you can tell me where the error is, I can try and help. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They meant Dina Wadia. - Sitush (talk) 05:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the article I gave ASHOKBINDUSARA a BLP warning about. Is the Wolpert text reliable for this information? Actually, when I look more closely, almost none of that article has inline cites. Do we need to temporarily stub it out of caution? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an OUP book and so should be reliable for whatever it says, but I am unsure of the context for which it is being used in the article. The article itself is, as you say, a mess. Stubbing could be a good idea, especially if it has been attracting some warriors. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Further i dont know about adding sources into these sites, if you can help me entering these references plz help because full name of Feroze gandhi was feroze jehangir gandhi, he has 3 elder siblings dorab jehangir gandhi,faridun jehangir gandhi and one elder sister this can be searched on express india news article but i dont know how to add references so plz help.

Second his eldest brother faridun jehangir gandhi son rustom jehangir gandhi is president of allahbad parsi assosication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk • contribs)

Please do not make negative comments about an entire religion. Because you did so, your entire post was removed, legitimately, by another user. I've re-added the non-discriminatory comments. As for adding the references, its fine if you don't know how; I can help you format that. First, are you talking about changes to the Feroze Gandhi article, or to Dina Wadia? Second, we usually do not include the names of siblings unless those siblings are also famous (based on a general presumption of privacy). If some of those people were themselves notable, though, we could add it. What we need for a reference is the name of the newspaper (book, magazine, etc.) it comes from, the date of publication, the name of the article, the author (if there is one), and, if the article is online, the URL address. You can put that on the article's talk page, along with the sentence you think should be added, and I can format it for you. However, if you're talking about Dina Wadia, I strongly encourage you to read and respond to Talk:Dina Wadia#Notable?; yesterday, I posted a section there saying that I don't see how Wadia is notable, and thus the article on her should probably be deleted. In order to be kept, we need some sort of evidence that she herself is notable--that is, she can't have an article just because her father is notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Coppola family tree

I have replied at the talk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to Live Trax articles

I have reverted the edits you made to redirect the Live Trax album articles to Dave Matthews Band discography. I saw that you made a post at Talk:Dave Matthews Band, but massive changes like this do require some sort of consensus, and so far no one has taken part in the discussion. You may want to seek elsewhere, such as WP:ALBUMS for more input. I know the articles lack sources, but there are sources out there that cover the albums, even if they're not currently situated in the article. Most of the articles are not written well nor contain lots of information, but that doesn't necessary mean they fail WP:NALBUMS. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I searched for independent sources first before I redirected, and couldn't find any, except for the one album that I didn't redirect (the compilation album). It wasn't my fault that no one discussed the issue; I did wait more than enough time to make the change. However, I'll just go ahead and take them to AfD, I guess. Any album that does not have multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss it in detail cannot have its own page, unless it meets one of the special exceptions of WP:NALBUMS, like having charted nationally (which none of these do). A number of these albums didn't even have full releases, making them even less likely to qualify. I'll process it as a single batch AfD, although I probably won't have time to get it started for about 2 weeks. If you're able to source them between now and then, though, I'm of course happy to leave any that are notable off the list. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Google hit counts

Regarding your questions about the hit counts, I have replied under the "Google search" heading. Hope you find the explanation helpful. STSC (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Kamma (caste)

Is it OK if we consider an old proverb used by a linguistic group as a common primary source and the Briitish authors who quoted it in their manual as secondary source. Please clarify. Kumarrao (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, it's not about the source, it's about the fact that we don't really care about the proverb as much as what the secondary sources have to say about it. How common was it? Was the source self-created, or from outside groups? How does it match with other evidence? I know it probably seems a little unfair of me to pick on that one proverb, given how much of that article needs a massive overhaul for being unsourced and badly weighted, but it's just the one point that's come up recently. Working with that article in more detail is somewhere on my long term list of projects, but, for now, we might as well fix this one problem that's in front of us. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is not self created. It was a manual written by the British in 1938. Please see page 104:(http://books.google.com/books?id=2qx-smrZLyUC&printsec=frontcover&lr=#v=onepage&q&f=false). I appreciate your views about the article. It was painfully researched and put together by me over a period of 3-4 years. We shall improve it togethers. Thanks.Kumarrao (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not "was the source self-created"; was the proverb self-created? Meaning, the proverb itself doesn't really belong in Wikipedia; what belongs there is commentary about that proverb. However, you note it's from a British manual written in 1938, which is a potential problem. I've just started becoming involved in India group/caste articles along with a few other editors, and one thing we've found is that many of the older British histories tend not to meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, often because all they did is copy what was told to them, which was essentially the same thing as copying down mythology. Please don't misunderstand--the work you've done to put the article together so far has been great. It's just that, overall, Wikipedia should not be presenting ancient stories or proverbs as if they are reliable sources of factual information. We should include the information, but 1) preferably along with commentary discussing the relative accuracy of said statements, and 2) make absolutely clear that such information is mythical, not factual. Alas, in a few days, I'm going to have very little WP access for over a week, so this is not something I can tackle now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Alumni

If I compile a list of award winners by university affiliation, similar to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation will that satisfy the requirement of being a reliable source? Obviously, any information in the tables would be cited. Nowhereman86 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Only a single reliable source claiming that they have more than any other school will count. Counting how many they have is probably legitimate (which is already in the article), but, unless you're going to count the numbers at every other institution in the world (and that's probably OR), then there's no way to verify that Columbia had the most. Please do not re-add that information without a reliable source, as that is a direct violation of WP:V. Also, continuing to attempt to add information that you think is correct when several other editors are objecting is edit warring, which is also not allowed. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of my article before it goes live

Hello! I have been working on another article and it is currently located at a work-in-progress page under my username User:Mrlwiki/Jay_Golden. I'm still working on getting permission to use some photographs I found on the web and linking to other Wikipedia articles but could you take a look at the article and let me know if I did everything else right this time? I think this guy is definitely notable (there is a lot of press about him online) and I've followed all of the citation guidelines that I learned from my last article. Let me know if there's anything you would change (besides adding photos and linking to other Wikipedia articles) and what is the proper way to move this article into the mainspace once it is ready.Thank you!

Mrlwiki (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review of my second article. I just moved it over to "Jay Golden" and it has a "new unreviewed article" template at the top. Can you remove that for me since you've reviewed the article? Then I'll submit the article for DYK. Thank you!

Mrlwiki (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rate Your Nando's

Hi Qwyrxian, We spoke about citing www.rateyournandos.com pages on the Wikipedia Nando's page last year. Since then the rateyournandos website has expanded significantly and can now be considered a significant resource in its own right. Please can you reconsider lifting the ban on citations from the website. Particularly significant are the international pages found at www.rateyournandos.com/international.aspx which contain facts and restaurant listings which cannot be found anywhere else online. Were the ban lifted I would be able to add a lot of useful information to the Wikipedia page which would no doubt help people all around the World. Thanks Jc sed8d (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that, as the website itself points out, it is still just a fansite with no affiliation at all with the company. As such, there is no reason to believe that the information is in any way accurate. We definitely can't link any of the commentary or ratings as those are just the random opinions of random customers (which don't meet WP:DUE). The other info, about locations and things served, does seem useful, but it seems to be outside of Wikipedia's provenance. That is, our job is not (see WP:NOT and WP:EL) to provide every link that might be "useful" to readers--our job is only to provide encyclopedic summaries of what reliable sources have said about things. I don't see anything on the rateyournandos site that overcomes the prohibition in WP:ELNO on fansites. However, others may disagree. The best thing to do is to start a discussion at Talk:Nando's, and then possibly to go to WP:ELN (which is a noticeboard where people discuss external links) for more input. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikibreak over

I've finished my wikibreak; With about 10 days worth of stuff to go through, it's going to take me time to get up to speed, but I'll respond to concerns when I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ciao for now

Though it's been fun, the end of mediation has signaled another end to my activity. If there is ever another mediation or a higher level DR, you know how to find me. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

About Lisi

I responded to your comment on the page if you are interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.55.28 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Qwyrxian, but in the years I have contributed to many many physics pages (I don't have an account and I have contributed from several locations) but I have never had any problems like this and I did not realize that defending true statement would have created a problem. I thought it was obvious that some editor are attempting to modify the truth. Especially in science that should be ethical and objective. 98.244.55.28 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then you've been lucky :). It does, indeed, happen that science topics became "hotbeds" of editing, so long as the research involved is either adopted by pop media and/or is questionable within the scientific community itself (i.e., what Wikipedia calls WP:FRINGE topics). Personally, I've been on and off on Ruggero Santilli for probably about a year now; and, of course, look at the problems with the entire area of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Please note that I, at the moment, don't understand the situation with Lisi well enough to know which of you, if either, is presenting an NPOV approach (thus why I enlisted help from Wikiproject Physics). Also, note that Wikipedia treads a very careful line about the "truth"; in fact, we generally care much more about verifiability than we do about truth. My initial impression is that both of you seem to be partially right, thus the need for discussion to work it out. Thanks for bearing with the process; dispute resolution can be time consuming, especially when you're certain you're "right", but it's the only way to both allow free and open editing and strive for the best possible articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That was really interesting. I guess it's more normal to have crazy edits on topics as broad as global warming, while I have never had problems in basic physics and particle physics. The subject maybe is too technical to attract edit wars. I have to be honest, I am particularly puzzled about this Lisi page. I looked at the history and apparently there were both attempts to insult Lisi's work and to promote it. I am honestly not trying to make Lisi look like a stupid physicist (like many physicists do), but at the same time it is highly unethical to leave the page with impression that Lisi's theory is currently a valid alternative to the mainstream theories. I realize that verifiability is more important that an abstract concept of truth, but at the same time it should appear obvious that what Lisi himself states is NPOV, and so is obvious that about the criticism to his theory we should look at the actual papers that express that criticism instead of what Lisi reports about it.

If you ask particle physicists, they most likely would just tell you that the theory simply doesn't work and that it is very very far from being even comparable to other theories. It is very complex to give details of why this is the case, it would involve the understanding of why the three generation problem is so important in particle physics (basically you cannot predict anything without the three generations, because they are so intertwined in the modern experiments, especially the top quark is a key particle for most processes, while the up and down quarks are the, say, main components of protons and neutrons, which means that you really really need a way to include the generations to do anything in modern particle physics).

When I met Lisi, I talked to him about the theory and it was obvious since then to him that the three generation problem was the main problem of the theory, together with the fact that each particle would have the same mass (which is wrong), that at the time there was no dynamical symmetry mechanism (an attempt to give one is due to Smolin, for a general class of models), and that he is not capable at the moment to reproduce any of the patterns of masses, interactions and mixing angles because to do that you need the three generations (because they "mix"). But I think that Lisi is a smart person, just not a traditional particle physicist, which is too bad because sometimes he doesn't see the importance of cleaning up his theory instead of going around and giving interviews to popular papers or magazines.

But all this media attention created a lot of "fans" who love the idea of the surfer dude who "understands more than professors" (which obviously isn't the case, not because he couldn't be a good physicist, but just because he has done little compared to a lot of other people). The E8 stuff was known in string theory for a lot of time, although it is used differently in that case and the only Lisi's new thing, what he calls "superconnection", that unifies fermions and bosons, so far has no explicit realization (it is actually a very important problem) and he always just responds that it's possible using some BRST technique (which are never seen anywhere applied to such a problem). So, while at first it seemed a completely honest person, people started not understanding why he wouldn't really ever answer to the criticism but just partially. He always states that it's not a problem, but then never includes it in his papers. If another "academic" physicist did that, they would be immediately marked with adjectives like "unreliable" and "visionary", but if Lisi does it, then he gets the support of the fans and the media loves him because the idea of the person who skies, surfs and does physics in his 70s van on the coast of Maui is very very attractive to the audience.

Now there is even people making money with it. From Lisi's page you can even buy T shirts for $20 or so. Nothing bad about it, obviously, but this could even potentially create users who care more about supporting the theory instead of what the true impact of it is in particle physics (honestly very little).

I am also worried about the young people. In fact, while it's good if they get interested about particle physics, it is dangerous to let them believe that the surfer guy is right and instead the evil string theorists are just trying to make him disappear because he's a threat to the academic world of string theory (this is sometimes what people try to say dividing physicists in partisan lines).

I honestly worked in particle physics, I know well both Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. I don't like either of them, if anything I like LQG a little better as an approach to gravity and ST better as a particle physics approach, but this doesn't make Lisi's theory right or wrong. Lisi's theory for now just doesn't work. He knows that, everybody does. In fact, he has stated so in several occasion (that currently it still isn't a complete theory and that the predictions he can make are very little). But from the page it seems that Loop Quantum Gravity people like Lisi, while String Theory people hate him, but this isn't the truth. The truth is that most people know that the theory is very very incomplete (if not wrong is some of its parts) and they don't care much about it. I know many LQG people who think that Lisi's theory is completely wrong, others who liked the spirit of it, others who worked on the gauge part but not the fermionic part. I know "no physics researcher or professor" who believes that his theory is correct (because not even him is claiming so). And believe me, I know many physicists.

At the same time, Lisi's theory allowed a lot of people to be interested in the topic, which is a very good thing, and I disagree when people just want to insult him for making mistakes and not being the perfect ethical researchers (for example, a physicist said of him something like "it's hard to make him understand why he is wrong when his money depends on not understanding why he's wrong"). I instead believe his work should be presented neutrally and just for what it is, with no connection to the person (expect for authorship and then his story in his personal page). But the physics presented should be at least correct, and if there is something in his theory that clearly doesn't work because it is so stated by everybody (and it is verifiable), then this should be clearly reflected on the wiki page. Instead the wiki page in some of the edits almost looks like what Lisi himself would write about his theory.

Honestly, nobody would say anything like that about, for example, Arkani-Hamed, Nima's new unification program involving twistor theory doesn't even really have a page, and it's considered by the most brilliant physicists around the world very very promising (I challenge you at checking what people will say in 5-10 years about it). But nobody would ever try to state false things to present it for better than it is. For now it has great results but it's not a full theory. And Nima has 19345 total citations, not 29 total like Lisi, of which 16 are for famous paper and some of these 16 are even his own (while Nima's most famous paper has 744 citations). This is why when I read "several" instead of "a few" I get suspicious (without even mentioning that the editor tried to say "builds on" his theory, where it is verifiable that some of those papers, available to look at online, just briefly cite Lisi's). (P.S. Nima is 4 years younger than Lisi)

So, when you see that Lisi's theory has so much importance and presents things in a POV way, you either think that somebody has an interest in doing that, or that there is some crazy fan that doesn't understand much about physics and wants to promote his idea of an alternative scientist (respectable, as long as the information isn't false, like sometimes unfortunately it is)

Anyhow, after this long and maybe boring story I'll go back to my actual work. Let me know if there is anything specific that can help the dispute process to appear clear and clean. Cheers 70.136.253.158 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)