User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Qwyrxian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

FYI

I have not included any information related to the Text of Hyderabad article. Some other person named omer included it Check my edit summaries and do not waste my time. I have restored it to the original state. I have not inlcuded a single letter related to size of industry.

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)).

Protection

Hi Qwyrxian. Thank you for semi-protecting Maurice Trintignant. Were you also planning to semi-protect 1960 Argentine Grand Prix? (which was listed in the same request at WP:RFPP). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the second article; I've just protected it now for a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. DH85868993 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude

stop this and check edit history. I am not concerned about film industries size, I DID NOT INCLUDE ANY TEXT RELATED TO SIZE OF THE INDUSTRY. DO NOT EMAIL ME

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)).

Do not message me

The size of the film industry is already given in cinema of andhra pradesh article and is properly cited. I am not against it.

(Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)).

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Qwyrxian, I am heartly thankful to you for responding. I thought wikipedia people would never wake from slumber. I will take care in future. I have raised question on the reliability of the following articles, Morarji Desai, Gandhi and non one from wikipedia seem to respond. Please make sure that someone responds when questions are raised. If I am incorrect, I will be happy to figure out and live with it.as,yhwh 06:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by As.yhwh (talk • contribs)

I'll try to take a look if I have time; I did just respond to your concern on Talk:Anna Hazare, specifically to point out that your preferred approach (a separate Criticism section), is actually specifically against our WP:NPOV policy--whenever possible, criticism should be integrated, not separated. No promises on when I look at the rest, but I'll try. One quick note, though: when you add a new section to a talk page (a user talk like mine or an article talk page, add the new thread to the bottom. If you added new threads to the top, that may well be why people ignored them, because our standard practice is always to put new stuff on the bottom, so it's possible that people simply didn't notice your comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Whoa, I've just spotted this and have a tangential query. How does the "Reputation" section of James Tod stand in view of your comment that "whenever possible, criticism should be integrated, not separated". Is it one of those that falls into the "not possible" zone? Or does it avoid the issue by not being entirely criticism? - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be integrated--that's the ideal. There are times when it's impossible. No one can use that part of WP:NPOV to justify removal--all they can do is use it to move information around. Also, there is the issue of what makes the personal notable. Here, Tod isn't notable so much for what he did, but what he wrote (his "historical/scientific theories", if you will). In a sense, this isn't critcism of Tod, as much as it is a current understanding of the field of historians of what to do with his works. Prolly the best thing would be to rephrase it in terms of his works, not him (if needed). Or, another way to do it is to integrate "works" and "reputation". That's my quick thought working only from memory; can't look at this exact moment, will try later. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ur welcome to edit

please stop removing references and change the text accordingly, as to what was cited in source. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)).

What was in the source was not useful. It simply says that 2 particular neighborhoods in Hyderbad had the highest rate of increase in value in 1 year. That's trivial information, not belonging in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My dear editor

Everyone agrees, that the source regarding the size of the industry is correct. But, the user omer, included that reference in the sister cities section. the issue is not about the source, Its about the fact that the article is about Hyderabad not any film industry (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)).

The Tamil vs Telugu conflict is one that has been developing in wiki for a long time. Ip's and accounts have fought for the position of the industry and it has been decided that the Tamil industry leads in popularity and revenue fields, while the Telugu one produces more number of films yearly (in some cases, larger than bollywood). Hope its clear. refer to [1], [2], [3]. Secret of success (Talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...I had no idea I was walking into yet another ethnic conflict in India. Okay, I don't have time to get involved, but I will leave a detailed message on the talk page explaining some problem behaviors and how to move forward with dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

firstly i would appreciate and thanks for Qwyrxian intervention,

in responce to Dragonbooster4 query that Omer had used one reference in two different locations. I would like to ask what is wrong in this?? if we provide one authentic reference into multiple locations/information which contains related data. where as the reference which i provided clearly says its a sister city of Hyderabad and hyderabad contains so and so qualities, I did that because WP policy clearly says not to make the article a multiple references junk.
Even i was not aware that the revert was due to ethinic issue, any way i provided the reference which is authentic and gave the information about the status of telugu cinema in India. I am not arguing for the status of telugu cinema in India, its fortunately i found the information and source so i placed it. otherwise basically i focus on history and culture sections.
The purpose of my request is to stop/control unnecessary edits and reverts made by Dragonbooster4 or others, as its a very hard work and contribution done by many editors to make Hyderabad, India article a good and feture article. the same user Dragonbooster4 had spoiled many other sections as mention in my previous request and which can be track thru edit history.--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to use a reference in more than one place. I have explained on the article's talk page why the reference can't be excluded just because of some agreement on other wikipages, but it's going to be up to all of you to work out how to do that. One question worth exploring is whether the government of Brisbane (the author of the cited webpage) actually is enough of an authority on Hyderabad to consider that page a reliable source for anything other than the sister city relationship. As for your larger issue, if you think the edits are unecessary, the correct thing to do is revert them, then discuss it on the article talk page. One thing neither of you have done is to discuss it there. I can't just decide that Dragonbooster4's edits are wrong and yours are right. Admins never make content decisions (rather, I should say that their content opinions hold no more value than any others; we're merely tasked with some managerial stuff). You both have to abide by policies and guidelines, but even when editors do that, they will often disagree about what should be in the article; that's what discussion is for, and if necessary, dispute resolution. Now, if there is a specific case where you believe Dragonbooster4 is violating policy, I can look into it, but you need to give me a diff (follow that link to see how), because I don't have time or enough knowledge to go edit by edit through the history to see exactly what the concern is. I do note that Dragonbooster4 is not being as civil as required, so I'll continue to monitor that. But, again, the key thing is y'all need to start talking on the talk page; I've left a bunch of points there that would be a good place to start. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I saw you just left a message there, I'll take a look at it soon.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so after many requests the Dragonbooster4 will not get refrain from his/her disruptive activities, please check this latest spoiling reverts ( 445485542 [[4]] made by the Dragonbooster4, in this edit the user had spoiled the article by removing reference, grammar, tone of the article, and templates ( which were provided to reduce the size of the article by users consensus on talk page).Please check the loss of same latest revert edit( 445485542 [[5]] listed below, for your perusal.

spoiled the grammar and tone here in the section Early History and Modern History.
Spoiled references here Integration into Indian Union , Demographic by removing dead link tag, without giving brief explanation.
by removing template see also in the section Economy
section Economy by removing access date from the reference in the Line 223, and one reference from same section.
Section Education and research by removing the live link and placing the previous dead link and removed the linking with in WP.
Removed completely deleting information about the old airport.
Removed the live reference from the sub section Cuisine and replaced it with previous dead link.
Removed access date from 4 references from Line 321 of section Media
Removed access date from 5 references from Lines 371, 389, 401, 426 of section Sister cities and just given the edit specification as Restoring deceptive edits.
Removed image from the article Basheerbagh, without giving any explanation, plz see this edit ( 444418140 [[6]]).

What i understand from Dragonbooster4 activities that he is heading on this article to destroy it, rather then constructive manner, and just playing with the hard work of the editors, by blindly reverting the edits, even thou we had requested him to discuss on talk page for reverting and do that with all editors consensus, but intentionally the Dragonbooster4 is avoiding the policy of WP. Please check his abusive specification here (445502428 [[7]]) and (445206112 [[8]] ) may be he is misunderstood WP as asocial networking site where he can use cheap grade language for editors, which may/should not be tolerated, as he is demotivating and spoiling the trust of WP users. I hope the admin will take the necessary action to stop this user to spoil the articles. Not only this the Dragonbooster4 activities on other articles is disruptive and avoiding WP Policies.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it's time for you to dial down the comments. It's pretty apparent to me that Dragonbooster is trying to improve the quality of the Hyderabad article, but just doesn't understand how to do so within our policies. Note that xe has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring...I don't know if he's ever going to learn how to use the talk page, but, if xe doesn't, xe'll get longer and longer blocks. In other words, I don't think Dragonbooster is trying to destroy anything, but he simply isn't understanding how WP works. I'm hoping he tries to learn, but I am doubtful it will happen. As a side note, I'd like you to take a look at Secret of Success's most recent comment on the article talk page--xe seems to think that a lot of the sources have been misinterpreted just like you misinterpreted the Banjara Hills source; you may want to start a full, thorough scrubbing of the sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, i wish he could learn to work on WP. to clean misinterpretion we need proper coordination and that is what we are not able to get, due to the continues revert, and humiliating words used by him. regards. --Omer123hussain (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Some concerns...

Hey there, Qwyrxian, despite being absent for a while. I was watching the KGO-TV article and I am seeing something suspicious. One of the users that I noticed when accessing the revision history is that a user was trying to add another personality that has no Wikipedia article (or references to where they are now) as per what I discussed at the article's talk page a while ago (Unreferenced Entries of Former Employees). I was not sure if I should warn the user responsible for such, even despite my efforts to remove unreferenced entries of former employees that worked at a television station. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 06:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to remove new unsourced additions to those lists (and lists of school alumni, and residents lists) all the time. I never bother to warn the user unless the same user persists in the addition. Just site WP:NLIST in your edit summary; if it persists, make sure one of the big explanations goes on to talk (if you don't have one, let me know and I'll find one of my articles where I added mine); then if that persists, tell the user (unless they're IP hopping). You can eventually ask for protection or a block for edit warring, although I will tell you that I got some resistance lately from one admin telling me its a content dispute, despite WP:NLIST being completely unambiguous. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize for the delay of response, since I was involved in a discussion regarding the use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames (see also WT:U).

You are not the only one, Qwyrxian. I have seen User:Anna Frodesiak also reverted edits per the same reason. If I recalled my past edits, I did add some information regarding unreferenced articles or personalities of former employees (e.g. KPIX-TV talk page, under "Notice of adding unrefenced articles in regards to former personalities"), although I use different wording than most users would have done in order to prevent copycat of another user. I do thank you for your suggestion, although I may consider using it also in the article's talk page.

Also, you meant that you had to remove new, unsourced additions to the lists not limited to television articles, school alumni, and resident lists. Perhaps I should watch the user and warn them appropriately if the user attempts to counter-revert (per WP:EW) the edit that I made. What I meant about "counter-reverting" or such is in my definition as adding back the information that either does not have a Wikipedia article or a reference to that personality or person after a user has reverted an edit per WP:NLIST, WP:NOT, WP:V and/or WP:BLP. CHAK 001 ^{(Improvements? Please let me know!)} 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that some people just won't listen no matter what you do, and others simply never talk about it (especially IP addresses--I believe that many of them don't even know about the existence of talk pages, edit summaries, etc.). It's not vandalism, but I use the same method: Revert the mistake, Explain it somewhere (start with edit summaries, move to article or user talk page if persistent), warn if it doesn't go away and isn't coming from an IP hopper, and eventually move to blocking (if not hopping) or page protection (if hopping). Basically, some "problems" on Wikipedia are persistent, and will never go away so long as we allow open editing (which, I believe we should--we just have to take the bad with the good). It really is very hard to understand why "But I used to watch the person every day so I know they were on the show!" isn't sufficient, because, ultimately, it doesn't match "common sense". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Need some counsel

Hi Q,

I have lodged my first complaint at ANI regarding another editor who has, IMO, been abusive. This particular insult has gone too far. You can find the discussion HERE

I am surprised at many of the responses, such as it is okay at wikipedia to write nasty things about a person's religion. Is it okay to speak that way to Catholics, Jews, or Muslims? I realize that we all have different hot-button issues. But, this editor, as you know, has been mean, demeaning, and now outright hostile and insulting. Any ideas? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, my first advice is that once you take something to ANI, it's generally not appropriate to ask individual admins/editors the same question. I know that I'm informally mentoring you, but you should have asked me prior to taking it to ANI. Otherwise, it looks like you're either canvassing or forum-shopping, both of which are considered bad. Again, it's a little different due to the way you and I are interacting, but, for the future, I recommend you either ask me first, or you just take it to ANI. Remember, I can't override community consensus--we're all just one among many.

Regarding the specific issue, I will make a comment on the ANI that I actually don't see any insulting; rather, I see exasperation. The problem is that, while I haven't read every single word of the Brand talk page, it does seem like you're asking the same question over and over again. Once you raise an issue in an RfC, in general, you want to step back and see what the invited uninvolved editors say. You can, of course, respond to questions or correct misapprehensions, but I feel like when I look at the talk page, you're reframing, re-summarizing, and, in general, repeating the same question several times in different ways. There has to come a time when, even though you don't like the answer, and you really think other people aren't understanding you, you simply have to drop the issue. I mean, you always have the option of pursuing other forms of dispute resolution (though you'd have to wait for the current RfC to finish), but if the end result is that you think one thing while every other editor thinks another, it may well be that you're preference is not going to be expressed in the article. I agree that Hrafn has switched over into a fairly hostile form of conversation, but I don't think he's insulting you, Brand, or Brand's religion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Leonard R. Brand article notability

Hi Q,

The Leonard R. Brand article has been considered a biography of an academic. I don't think that he is notable enough to pass the PROF test, though I have just begun my study of such. I think he easily passes the test of notability of a living person. (I am still learning the correct terms).

He is interesting. (Decided by consensus?).
He is unusual enough. (Decided by consensus?)

*He is a Young Earth Creationist and a respected paleobiologist. As far as I can tell, only a few people are both like he is.

*He has helped lead the Adventist church to educate masters-level geologists. (I need to conclusively show this, yet.)

*He has put his research skills to work in assessing Numbers, Rea, and Butler regarding Adventist visionary, Ellen G. White.

*His chipmunk vocalization studies have been consistently cited by researchers and by authors portraying the characteristics of chipmunks.

Question 1

Do you have any counsel regarding the difference between the two notability guidelines?

Question 2

In your opinion, how eligible is Brand for passing the regular bio notability test?

This is where you're making a mistake. The points you list above have nothing to do with how we measure notability of living people. The general criteria, which you can read in WP:BIO, is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject[5]" (those numbered notesare explained in the guideline itself). Now, many users question whether or not this is a good measure of notability, but its the best one we have, despite its flaws. Thus, we do not need to make a consensus decision about whether or not he is interesting or unusual. Rather, all we care is whether or independent, reliable sources have discussed Brand. The reason for the prof test is that an academic can clearly be an "important" (i.e., notable) person, but never be discussed personally, because what makes an academic important is her work, not the person herself.

Thanks. Your carefully reasoned help has been, and is, appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PROF itself tells us what to do: "For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject. If notable only in another capacity entirely, see the general criteria for that field." If Brand is notable in some field other than academics, he need not pass WP:PROF.
So, if you want to consider whether or not Brand meets this criteria, you have to look to see what sources have discussed him and in what depth. Note that SDA publications will almost certainly not count, nor will a simple citation of Brand's work. You'll need "regular" newspapers, magazines, television shows, etc. As to whether or not Brand meets WP:BIO, I don't know, nor am I going to check. I'm trying to maintain a distance from that article and provide input on the process rather than on the content. That way if I need to give input or even take administrative action on the behavior, I can do so without being WP:INVOLVED. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

What to do about misformatter who won't respond to Talk?

Oi Q, got a kid at Kaibarta (caste) who clearly doesn't understand how WP:Footnotes work and keeps dumping all his "footnotes" at the end of the article. I've left him about three Talk messages so far, and he continues to ignore me and do the same thing. Is there anything an admin can do to get someone's attention? Is there a set method of "hey dude, seriously, read your Talk" ? Thanks for any tips. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you trust the content? I see on xyr talk that one of Jdas's sources was Nazi.org.uk, which makes me strongly question xyr ability to identify a reliable source, and thus calling into question the rest of the info xe's adding. If you have any doubts, revert to a version before all of xyr additions. Or just go through and remove all of the info not verified with an inline citation. Note that WP:V states, "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." That is, it doesn't say the info just has to have a source somewhere in the article, but that it must have an inline citation if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. I have taken articles before that had no inline sources (though they had footnotes) and basically stubbed them (or whacked large sections). Sometimes, the way to get someone's attention is to completely undo xyr work--that may get xyr to bother to learn how to use our various talk systems. And, unfortunately, sometimes the only choice is to keep reverting, and, eventually, block the person for edit warring. There's only one other approach, and I've only seen it used once--if you know the person is editing "right now", what you can do is to revert them and add a message into the article itself. Wait about 5 minutes (or until after the person keeps warring), and pull it out. It's a desperate attempt, and I would never use it on a high traffic article, but the potential "damage" to a reader of such an out-of-the-way article is worth the chance of communication. But, again, that only works if you happen to catch the changes as they're happening. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I added it to my watchlist, but I'm not editing it for now--I want to just monitor the situation for now. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice

I have opened an AN/I notice on the conduct of UrbanTerrorist, and some of your comments to the user have been mentioned. You can reach the AN/I discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

CSD G7 delete please

I am fixing the talk page archiving for User:Panderoona, per her request on my own talk page. They have been pretty confused about all of this & so it would be easier not to bother explaining CSD G7 etc.

Basically, she needs to G7 User_talk:Panderoona/Archive 1, move User_talk:Panderoona/Archive 3 to become User_talk:Panderoona/Archive 1 and reset the bot counter. I have temporarily redirected archive #1 to #3 but that is not a long-term solution because the same problem will arise when the bot counter increments.

Any chance that you could do the first step, please? I can sort out the rest for them. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it; I'll go ahead and fix the counter to now, and leave a note on her talk. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what I like: someone prepared to go the extra mile (or keystroke, or mouse click). Thanks very much. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was worried that if I didn't fix the counter, that Miszabot might run before you got to it, and then it would still be messed up. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WGN-TV

Hi Q,

I just wanted to bring this issue to your attention, a person has been removing a lot of material from the WGN-TV page including all of the current personalities and other content. He just started doing it today and I tried expressing my thoughts on the talk page but it doesn't seem like I am conveying it to him. I believe the content beloings there and should be back on the page. Please look in to this matter for me. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've expressed my opinion on the article's talk page; note that my position is in between yours and Sudoghost's. I've asked both of you for further opinions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I responded on the article's talk page, if you could take a look at comment it would be greatly appreciated. - Sudo Ghost 02:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just notifying you about the ANI. You have been mentioned. The report is about PP of Kurmi article. Nothing related to you. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Anna Hazare talk page

I need you to kindly put your views on discussion going on over Anna Hazare article. Please, read discussion under section "References for statement in intro not reliable and verified". There is some serious conflict of views between few editors,including me. Please, go through,each and every important info and reference,and put forward your valuable comment.Thank you. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't think I'm going to have time in the near future. I have 3 big projects I have to finish, along with admin actions to discuss, along with my normal watchlist to cover. I won't have time to look in depth at something for at least 2 weeks. I will point out that Telco already answered your question about where "forced vasectomies" is written (it's in the Hindu article). But keep talking together, actually quote sources, etc. That article does have a lot of problems (WP:RECENTISM is the biggest one that I notice on a quick check, but there may be NPOV issues as well), so you've collectively got a lot of effort to work through. Use dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement yourselves; if you need info about technically how to do that (starting the DR processes), let me know and I can work on that part. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Melting of the Ice Award

	The Melting of the Ice Award
	Awarded for diligence in preventing chilling effects affecting other editors' work. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not what I expected I'd be doing when I became an admin, but, well, I did say that I couldn't predict what I'd be doing. While POV-warring is probably our biggest long-term problem, there's very little that can be more damaging in the short term than off-wiki threats. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For careful, but decisive reasoning in preventing disruption to already belabored discussions surrounding Heroes in Hell, and for keeping a cool head while doing so. You're off to a great start.I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

RFPP for Kurmi

So you know. I will drop a note on Salvio's page as a courtesy, since they were the protecting admin. - Sitush (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I provided my input. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say that the ability to request unprotection at a place which advertises itself as being for protection is somewhat non-intuitive. That there may have been some confusion regarding this is probably to be expected. OTOH, short of setting up yet another noticeboard, I cannot think of an easy solution (a rename, for exmaple, would have to be quite lengthy "Requests for Page Protection or Unprotection". - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that, in part, its because un-protection requests are so exceedingly rare. Removal of full protection generally requires discussion with the protecting admin first, and semi-protection is almost always warranted when applied because of disruptive IP editing--this case is a bit unusual because it's not vandalism of BLP violations, but rather violations of NPOV, OR, V, and consensus. I'll be quite piqued if a new admin removes the protection, given the fact that there have been no constructive IP edits in at least 4 months. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And I see EdJOhnston has declined; have to modify my message on Talk:Kurmi. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Demand for apology

You have misrepresented my words in your statement on the Arbitration case. I'm trying to resolve this dispute privately and amicably with you before further steps will be taken in the Dispute Resolution. I ask you politely to withdraw your misrepresentation unconditionally by a declaration on the Main Case's talk page since your statement cannot be modified on the Main Case page. STSC (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, help me to understand how I misrepresented you? Are you saying that if consensus agreed that the current name is correct, and meets our standards for article/place naming, that you would no longer consider the NPOV-title tag necessary, and would no longer pursue moving the article to a new title? In other words, will you accept a community based decision that accepts the SI name? Because when I re-read your words now, in context, they still seem to say to me that your opinion is that SI cannot be an acceptable title for these articles. I promise you that I am not intentionally "misrepresenting" your words--my interpretation of your words is that you will only accept any outcome of dispute resolution if that outcome is not Senkaku Islands. Now, that may well not be what you intended, so if you state here that you will accept (another) outcome of DR in favor of the current title, then I will apologize on the talk page for reading your words in a way different than that which you intended.

As a side note, just to clarify my own position, I will accept a community consensus to move the article title to another name. I firmly believe that such a move would be wrong, a failure to interpret both the relevant data and our policies, but I will accept such a decision. In fact, when looking back through the archives, my original position was that we should probably switch to "Pinnacle Islands"; it was only after looking at all of the available information, plus the outcome of the last RfC, that my positioned hardened to strongly advocate for the current name because of our naming guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to waste more time on this. When you presented something that is not what I said, it is misrepresentation. I deserve an unreserved apology. STSC (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Q: That belief is problematic... namely accepting a community decision even when you firmly believe that such a move would be wrong. Another thing I consider problematic is that you still do not seem to get the fact that there was never a consensus that supported the current article name and that all the fundamental evidence that was used to support the name was overturned. Anyhow, an apology would be kind of an overkill. A re-statement or clarification would've been satisfactory. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry STSC, you still haven't explained how I misinterpreted your words, so I don't know what to apologize for. As far as I can tell, I didn't misinterpret your words, and even though I've asked you at least twice, you still haven't explained how I misinterpreted what you said. Honestly, I do not understand what the misinterpretation is, and if you won't tell me, I don't know what to do. I can make a statement on the talk page later tonight (about to be busy in just a moment), but it's not going to be an unreserved apology. I don't understand how I can say "I'm sorry for misinterpreting you" when I don't understand what you think you meant. It would be a thoroughly hollow apology.

Bobthefish2: Because at some point, Wikipedia has to move on. We cannot argue the same thing over and over for eternity. I'm not saying that a community decision can't be overturned, but that should only be done in cases where something has clearly changed. And yes, we had consensus, because there were 3 separate community discussions (two RM's and one RfC), two of which supported the current name and one of which ended without consensus. It doesn't matter how the original move was done, what matters is that 3 times the community has spoken, and every time there was no consensus to change the name to something else. Not to mention the times when other editors unilaterally moved it to Diaoyutai and to Pinnacle, and each time it was moved back. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the differences hinges on whether or not the opposing minority has a good set of arguments. If it is clear that the majority opinion is wrong and there is a better alternative, then the continual pursuit for this better alternative should not be viewed with stigmatism.

It does matter whether or not the original move has consensus. Suppose there is a 50:50 split between DI-supporting editors and SI-supporting editors and an unauthorized move to SI was made, do you think a move out of SI would've gained a consensus? This is a simple case where people gamed the system to keep the article name as it is by misrepresenting the sequence of events and ~~lying~~ showing inadequate understanding of the casual relationships related to the matter. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And, fascinatingly, there's never been a 50-50 split--the decision has always been soundly in favor of SI. But, seriously, why are we arguing about this here, now? If I'm lying or being inadequate in my representation, explain it somewhere at the arbitration. I don't think I'm doing either; rather, I think you're arguing about a point that doesn't matter. If either of us is behaving badly in this regard, I'm sure that Arbcom will call us out on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it is 50-50, 66-33, or 30-70. As far as I know, there were considerable numbers on both sides over the years. I understand it's futile to try to explain to you why you are wrong and such, but I still like to write a response for future reference since you've started out this topic with such conviction.

By the way, I wasn't specifically thinking of you or your behaviour when I wrote that last sentence. You don't need to get so hyped up whenever I deliver a criticism. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ganeshsiddha

my site has been deleates, I read all warnings but how should i start aganin with new/correcive material? please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.99.147 (talk) 07:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on your user talk page, which is User Talk:Ganeshsiddha. After you log in (try to remember to always log in when editing), just click on the Orange bar that says you have new messages at the top (it will appear in about 10 minutes after I answer you there). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

need your help

sir i appreciate and like the work you do....i need your help regarding few of the issue as under... is there any way we can complain about any old users which have license to edit protected pages,i feel in few of articles they have been fighting with each other and they have vandalized the article just in order to prove superior to each other... they have been biased with some articles .....please do let me know the process to stop this kind of wrong and un-judicious behaviour ...thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 11:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably the best first step is for you to tell me what users or pages you're talking about; I'd be happy to take a look into it and see what the best step is. The first question is whether or not what they're doing is wrong; if it is, the next question is to figure out how to deal with the issue (warn the user, report them somewhere, etc.). Let me know more details and I'll give you more info. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Update to MOS or no?

Qwyrxian, discussion in MOS Talk has dried up. What about update to MOS:COLLAPSE? I know update language was being drafted. (I trust my suggestion to give consideration for difficult or brilliant game continuations in addition to chess problem compositions did not complicate matters inextricably; a responding editor thought the distinction wasn't important.) Without change I'm wondering what profit from all the involvement and discussion? (Without change, isn't it game for the same issue to repeat all over again, covering the same bases again? That seems wasteful and somewhat pointless to me.) Just trying to make sense of all the effort. Is there a timeline I don't know about for installing the update language to the MOS? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually, RfC's are supposed to run for 30 days. However, if the discussion has stopped, it's unlikely anyone else is going to jump in. There appeared to be a good consensus to change the MOS to include some allowance for collapse boxes for chess articles, though we disagreed on the exact wording. I'll make a comment on the talk page, then make the change directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! I didn't realize it had actually gotten archived. Well, I'll still go ahead and make the change, citing the archived discussion. Even though I disagree, given that at least two people want the broader language regarding continuations, I'm willing to accept it. That is, I won't add in the stipulation that the collapse can only be done if reliable sources would also "hide" or "obscure" the answer or continuation. I'll just take my best shot at a wording, and others can make modifications as they see fit. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You can see the addition in this diff. I toyed with a bunch of different wordings. On the one hand, it feels very awkward to me to specifically name exactly one subject (chess) in the MOS (it seems like WP:BEANS). On the other hand, I couldn't think of any broader wording that wouldn't lend itself to exactly the sort of abuse I was worried about at the beginning. That is, any general discussion of "game continuations" could easily, to me, be taken as license for someone to say "Hey, put the end of that video game in a collapse box because it ruins the surprise!" or "Collapse that info in that board game article, because it gives hints that people shouldn't have to read if they don't want to." So, I went with the least words I could. We'll see if anyone reverts it or modifies it. I hope not though, as this seems like a reasonable compromise, as well as a sensible exemption. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, welcome back from wikibreak.
First, thanks for making the change to MOS! Second, thanks for being open to not excluding brilliant or difficult game continuations in the MOS update language. Third, I understand what you say about keeping the language simple, so it doesn't draw flies, and I've done some thinking about it, and I think the update language can be simplified even further and even be more precise. Here's what I'd suggest:

Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzle diagrams.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess diagram puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess diagrams containing puzzles.

(or) Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or diagrams containing chess puzzles.

It turns out (if I'm right) that "chess puzzles" does a better job than "chess problems", because after reading Chess puzzle, I see the definition of puzzle encompasses chess problems. The article says:

Whereas the term chess puzzle refers broadly to any puzzle involving aspects of chess, a chess problem is an orthodox puzzle [...] in which one must play and win or draw a game, starting with a certain composition of pieces on the chess board, and playing within the standard rules of chess.

Also, throughout the discussion I forgot about chess endgame studies, which are essentially chess problems too but not exactly. The Endgame study article says:

An endgame study is a composed chess position — that is, one that has been made up rather than one from an actual game — presented as a sort of puzzle, in which the aim of the solver is to find a way for one side (usually White) to win or draw, as stipulated, against any moves the other side plays.

And regarding brilliant or difficult game continuations, there isn't a specific WP article corresponding to those, but it seems they would fall under "chess puzzles" according to the WP article definitions, see here (from Chess puzzle):

Chess puzzles can also be regular positions from a game (with normal rules), usually meant as training positions, tactical or positional, from all phases of the game (openings, middlegame of endings). These are known as tactical puzzles. They can range from a simple "Mate in one" combination to a complex attack on the opponent's king.

and here (from Chess problem):

Problems can be contrasted with tactical puzzles often found in chess columns or magazines in which the task is to find the best move or sequence of moves (usually leading to mate or gain of material) from a given position. Such puzzles are often taken from actual games [...] and are used for instructional purposes.

So to summarize, I think the update language should mean to include "chess problem compositions, endgame studies, other chess puzzles, and brilliant or difficult game continuations"; but of course that language would be absurd as update language, and unnecessary too, since "chess puzzles" seems to cover it all (according to the definitions in the other WP articles). What do you think? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. A perfect example of what I said in prev discussion about game continuations being sometimes segregated (hidden) in reliable sources, and sometimes not, is reflected in the way article Alexander Alekhine was constructed by other editors. (There you'll see diagram "Reti vs Alekhine" which is a game continuation *not* hidden, [followed by an endgame study (chess problem) where solution is hidden of course,] followed by the "Alekhine vs Yates" diagram which is a game continuation that *is* hidden.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I need to re-read this again tomorrow, but I have no problem switching from "problem or game continuation" to "puzzle", and defer to your expertise if you think that captures the whole idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Chess puzzle" wasnt' in my own active vocabulary, I'm just accepting/processing the def in the article. There seems to be good internal consistency of all the terms' defs between articles. (Impressive!) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition the WP internal definitions seem to be consistent w/ definitions in the chess world (shocked!). For example, the July 2011 Chess Life (p. 8) has article on chess problems, and quotes from a book by Frank Fiedler, giving a composed game problem, with title "The Player's Puzzle".

Are we ready to simplify the MOS language? I think all the ones I listed are equally good. (You pick!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a few weeks ago; sorry, I forgot to tell you here! If you check MOS:SCROLL, it now says, "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text, navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles." That's a fair wording from your perspective, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC):

Thanks. (I hadn't looked.) About "fair wording", yes for phrase "chess puzzles" incorporating chess problems (and endgame studies, and brilliant or difficult game continuations), as explained above. But I'm not sure what the entire sentence means ... Does it imply "Collapsible [...] may be used in [...] chess puzzles [...] that consolidate information covered in the main text"? If so, then that would be wrong! If "navboxes, infoboxes, or chess puzzles" means "or in chess puzzles" without that requirement, then that would be right! So I really don't know what the sentence is saying. (Do you?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it mans that there are four times that collapsing can be done:

in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text
in navboxes
in infoboxes
in chess puzzles.

So, all chess puzzles are automatically exempt from the restrictions on collapsing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Was wanting that to be true. (Happy!) Thx for your support on this MOS language update. (I for one will not abuse it.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Desired Life Ministries

No, I don't think you're correct. The edit summary says it was prodded, but if you have a look at the edit in question, it was actually marked as a candidate for speedy deletion. St Anselm (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Argh, you're right...and it was the article creator who removed the speedy tag...well, at this point, I don't want to undo the AfD; it's certain to be deleted there, so basically it just gets to survive 7 more days. Sorry about the mess; I'm still getting used to adminning and should have checked the history more carefully. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just let the AFD run its course. St Anselm (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

List of shopping malls in India - follow-up

Further to User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 16#List of shopping malls in India: pesky IP, could you permanent semi it? IPs are still having a free-for-all removing and adding all kinds of things, despite the amendment to the lead. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected, and i left a note on talk advising what to do next. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your archive search box

It seems to be malfunctioning. A strange hiccup occurs when I try searching "List of shopping malls in India". I get results like: "User talk:Qwyrxian (section List of shopping malls in India: pesky IP)", where it doesn't exist, instead of archive 16, where it actually is. Odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is actually a problem with all Wikipedia search boxes, including the main one. Basically, whatever search and archiving method we use for searching doesn't update very quickly. If you run the search right now, you'll actually see a result in both my archives and on my talk page. The Shopping Mall thread was archived less than 24 hours ago; my guess is that if you check again tomorrow (or soon thereafter) it will only show up in the archives. I've deleted stuff from articles before and had it persist in search for up to about 24-48 hours, I think. This also leads to the very weird situation that after a new page is created, it can show up on Google search in seconds to minutes (depending on what the topic is), but it won't show up in our own search for days. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Removing others' talk page comments

I'm really sorry I didn't meant to. I was testing out WP:IGLOO and things went awry. I guess IGLOO is not for me! — Fιηεmαηη ^(talk) 13:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, actually; a mistake do to using a tool incorrectly, especially when trying it out is normal; I was worried that you might be misunderstanding talk page policy. I know I've made plenty of mistakes with both WP:Twinkle and WP:Huggle. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Okrug

I wasn't online for the past couple of weeks, but here's the reply(although I should have replied two weeks ago). Btw as there's no English-language source about it, I replaced the wording county with okrug, which is the only term used by the Slavic-language sources, however, I was reverted.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message at the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

He still hasn't provided a source that confirms his translation of a term that has more than 5 possible translations. I've already asked four times today for the source that confirms his version and he's still insisting that I should accept his translation because it's just right, although there's no source supporting it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment on Storm Contents talk page

It appears to me that the user was stating that they wished they had the admin bit, so they could block/ban the user. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a possibility; but, if that's the case, it's even more of an indication that they shouldn't be an admin, yet. If xyr point is "Someone else blocked a sock of Grawp, and I wanted to be the one to get credit for it," then xyr is desiring adminship for the wrong reasons. The sock is blocked--that's what the project needs. Now, if xyr point was "I actually caught this sock a week ago, and if I'd had the bit I could have prevented more disruption, because I have time and I'm good at spotting these things," then I'd support the an RfA (eventually, anyway). I can imagine a few other reasons why xe might have brought this up to Jimbo as well, some positive, some less so, thus I am hoping to try to tease out the user's motivations. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:List_of_shopping_malls_in_India#Summarized_proposal:'s talk page. 02:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that if you're the only "involved" editor (i.e., if after a week or so nobody comments either way), I think you're clear to move ahead, and just deal with any fall out afterward. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I reckon Sodabottle and perhaps others will weigh in. There are a few of us who are sick of babysitting the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aprstc runs the world's largest fleet of buses?

Hi There, Needs your advice for the above topic on the talk page of Hyderabad, India. Regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia)

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at Talk:Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am just glad that people have come a long way

Hello,

This refers to discussion | here.

Glad now atleast there is an understanding that things are not as well-demarcated as some kind of anthropological study.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 13:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that this (Indian social/ethnic/religious groupings) is a difficult field to edit in. In part, the sources are just bad. In part, the definition have such critical real world consequences (social status for high caste, government assistance for low, etc.) that it really can matter what one group is called, and that's not even accounting for the pride. In part, the problem is that I think that there is a fundamental difference in knowledge-making (i.e., the power of discourse communities, as Foucault would say) between Indian scholarship and European/US scholarship. Add on top of that there is the weird collision that occurs because, technically, anyone can edit Wikipedia, but, practically, there are tons and tons of rules to learn in order to edit "appropriately". As a practical result, our articles on Indian groupings are almost always going to make someone unhappy, confused, etc. Maybe in another five or ten years, we'll have passable articles on some of these groups (and here I do mean passable in a Wikipedia sense, not passable in a "this is what my clan has always known to be true and therefore it must be true" sense). The best way to get there, I still believe, is through patience, through discussion, through consensus and sometimes compromise, and, when necessary, through dispute resolution. There are a lot of bad ways to try to achieve other goals through Wikipedia, like off-site canvassing, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. Ultimately, I have absolutely zero interest in whether Group A is a Sudra, Kshatriya, or Martian caste. All I care is that everybody plays nice and that they edit according to policy. I meant it when I said that if you think Sitush or MV has mischaracterized a source, I will try to look into it (obviously, time is always an issue, but I will do my best), and help you or whoever pursue the issue through noticeboards or DR. I also mean it when I say that when I see bad editing practices (tag-teaming, edit warring, tendentious editing, etc.) I will try to make those stop, including through the use of blocking and other sanctions. Many other editors (including most admins) are committed to the same goal. Let me know if you think you need help. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It is pertinent to point out that when newbies or editors point out anything related, I suggest this all should be kept considered and issues treated well. As far as I understand, if a community has a King in its history, it is natural that this will be pointed out for pride. A community won't point out list of tragedies/debacles, but surely if something is bright and aspiring it will be projected as a positively associative. This is something not just natural but also social, nothing wrong/twisted in it. People will be annoyed for sure if it is overlooked or projected incorrectly for lack of sources or authors, associated with politics in certain way, twisting in some sources for some political gains.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 14:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your right, this may upset them, but all we can do is to point, again and again, to our policies and guidelines which unambiguously say, "If it is at all questionable, and you can't verify it with a source, you can't include it." Yes, we need to be polite while doing so, but we should never compromise our core principles to satisfy the social/ethnic pride of a group. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More than pride, I am pointing out how in a way people move on in an environment that fluctuates now and then, as also includes invasions and is inclusive of those who want to be assimilated. I hope I am clear on this one.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Marty jar

Hi, I appreciate the edits are not exactly 'vandalism' per se but this user clearly seems to have a personal vendetta against me and has been digging through my contribution page. What would be the best place to report this incidence to, I wasn't sure where to go hence how I ended up on AIV, thanks. Christian1985 (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page: they're not vandalism at all, and xyr digging through your contributions is acceptable if xe believes that you've been editing improperly. At this point, you need to actually discuss the issues on the article talk pages. To add another example to the ones I left on your talk, your speedy deletion nomination of Vermin Club was an extremely questionable decision, given that the article has plenty of sources and the organization is not just "significant" (the very low level bar for passing speedy deletion), but easily "notable" (i.e., it would pass an AfD as well). To be honest, I've now started looking through your edit history, because I'm concerned about whether or not you understand WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , I would appreciate it if you keep an eye on this situation for a while re edits to Richard Littlejohn, Daily Mail and Margaret Thatcher, if you have a mind to. Thanks very much. Span (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Some pod suggestions for you

Hi Qwyrxian! I'm in the process of trying to find Online Ambassadors to support each of the classes for this coming term, and there are a few I thought you'd be a good fit for: Composition II, New Media and Development, or New Media: Innovation, Community, and Dissidence". If you're up for supporting one or more of those classes, please check out the Memorandum of Understanding (linked above) which sketches the expectations for Online Ambassadors this term, and then you can sign on to class and get in touch with the professor(s).

There some other classes that you might be interested in, too, so feel free to browse and sign on with a different class if you find something more appealing.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)