User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2015

Hi VQuakr

Thanks for your message to me about edit wars. Can I just clarify two points before I find myself blocked? I am just seeking to correct some inaccuracies and introduce some reasonable balance to the content and tone of the above page.

1. I cited the website Watts Up With That? (The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change) in my edit, but another editor justified reverting this by stating "fringe POV from unreliable source, blogs not acceptable". Being the worlds most viewed site does not suggest a 'fringe' POV and I note that at least two other blogs are cited in the same section (Ref 55: Deltoid and Ref 59: Skeptical Science). Could you please advise how Wikipedia determines what is or is not a 'fringe' POV and what is reliable or unreliaable?

2. If I can be blocked from editing for 3 reverts in 24 hours can I rely on the same happening to others who make reverts to my edits?

Many thanks!

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedurtnall (talk • contribs) 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The answer to your second question is that anyone can get blocked if they engage in more than 3 reverts in 24 hours (vandalism and BLP violations are exceptions). You question also suggest possibly gaming the system, which I suggest you should avoid. Regarding the first question, popularity is not a measure of reliability. What you are reading on that is factually false. Any experienced editor will revert that addition based solely on policy. I hope that helps. --I am One of Many (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have issues with the reliability of sourcing in the article, please use the article talk page. Just a heads up though - if the best source you have for such a WP:REDFLAG argument is the blog, your chances of getting it into the article are zero. All editors are held to the 3RR (which is a bright-line limit, not an entitlement), but the only other editor with more than 1 revert was Dave souza who is already familiar with the 3RR and as such did not need a notification. VQuakr (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! That doesn't sound too good, are my edits really that bad? Usually I try to add information about a little known subject, like I created the CEDM and AOL On articles. ~----User:AKA Casey Rollins — Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@AKA Casey Rollins: it is not a judgement on your edits in general, just related to your repeated creation of Minetest. This article was deleted after an AfD, and you recreated it twice - the second time after being advised against doing so by an administrator. Hence, the warning. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @VQuakr:. I'll be mor careful next time. I still plan on bringing back the article, but will go through the necessary proccesses this time and wait until there are enough GOOD references to prove its notability. AKA Casey Rollins (Talk to Casey) 8:46 PM, 17 January 2015 (EST)

I've been trying to add a criticism section on Arudou Debito's Wikipedia page and i've attempted to do so by starting a discussion on the talk page, but no one has responded to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page. Thank you for starting the discussion, and reminding me that you had done so. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr. You have been quoted there. You might want to reply. --Leyo 06:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to undo the models that I have placed which are sourced from jmol and the Wikipedia 2d diagrams, then you could at least replace them with something that has a better verifiable citation. I'll keep and eye on my notifications.

Lazord00d (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Multiple editors have notified you of the issues regarding your edits. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm disruptive editing seems to be a theme here on your page.. you make it your personal business to dictate content here on Wikipedia as a matter of course then? See it's things like that that make me fully aware that "consensus" isn't going to happen until and unless YOU and your buddies approve which effectively destroys any neutrality and can hardly be considered true consensus. Sorry mate, that just doesn't really cut it for me :-). Block away! Lazord00d (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:EW, etc. "It can only be consensus if everyone agrees with me" may work for toddlers in a playground, but is unlikely to get you very far here. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Man you and quoting policy.. would that be your safety blanket? Just curious. And you're obviously much smarter than the fine folks at Springer so here have a look at their molecular model and tell me all about how clueless they are..

http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html#

Note that it's identical in construction characteristics to mine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Etizolamstick3d.png

This is all about your disrespect for others, not mine.. you and your associates are the ones hunting me, vying for my contributions because I've made you mad by replacing some of yours and defending the change. When I defended it went unheard, as if I wasn't talking at all. Disrespect. I never sought you out. U mad bro?

Lazord00d (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you exhibit knowledge of the policies linked, people will stop suggesting you read them. The image existing at an external link does not make it more correct, but if you want to pursue this line of reasoning feel free to do so at the article talk page. Again, this is a community edited project so editing here requires that you work with others. VQuakr (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I won't be working with disrespectful people VQuakr, never have never will.. so you can rest assured that I won't be working with you and the rest of the knee-jerk emotionally reactive people that have taken issue with me here. My reactions have all been because of group disrespect due to that groups hurt feelings. You can't tell me why or how you know that Springer's usage of the exact same characteristics is incorrect because you'd be grasping at straws to do it. It's a perfectly fine reference.

Lazord00d (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Best of luck in your future endeavors. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup

Lazord00d (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr: Per your interest in the topic, check out the new List of obsolete units of measurement. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have a lot of reasons to suspect a lack of good faith here. Simply the fact that images which bear citation keep being "revenge" reverted is a key indicator. Unless information with superior sources comes along, existing info should be left alone.. I'm fairly sure that at some point these reverts could be considered vandalism. And these reverts are not just by Jynto but several others. Given the strength of my argument, which is shored up by the citations I've provided, I've been acting in good faith generally speaking. At least if this is true:

"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

I see you reverting my edits even now. Do you have superior citation for your reverts?

Lazord00d (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In the second sentence of your post above, you describe reverts as "revenge". This is failing to assume good faith, and using it as a justification for assuming bad faith is circular. Reverts are a normal part of the editing cycle, and your request for a "superior citation" is a requirement of your own making - you should not expect any other editor to respect it. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not always true sir, the strongest argument wins is the way I read that quote, which good scientific method would dictate should be backed and proven by superior citations or experimental proof. In this case what looks like a duck and quacks like one is likely a duck. Or a revenge edit :-).. Lazord00d (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. 

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

Hi VQuakr,

I wonder if you can find the time to tackle these two reverts I recently bumped into that I believe are not justified:

On the Ellen Pao page by User: Bbb23 (See:User_talk:Bbb23#Ellen_Pao_page_revert

On List of Wikipedia controversies by User:Gamaliel (See: )

Both editors are established and I do not wish to enter into an edit war with them. I am therefore asking for your opinion as an editor I respect who holds a differrent wiki-philosofy than mine. I would appreciate it if you could post yor opinion on the corresponding talkpages of these articles.

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: the Ellen Pao revert was probably triggered by the high density of peacock terms in the edit: high-profile, hailed as, ascent. The revert was two months ago; if you think the same subject matter should be included in better-written form just boldly add it. The List of Wikipedia controversies edit needs talk page discussion and better sourcing. One source does not a controversy make, and how to cover meta-content is often contentious. VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi VQuackr, I'm a new editor here at Wikipedia, so apologies in advance for any mistakes and such.

I had added the comment from Peter Tasker re: Arudou's onsen case because otherwise it seems like Alex Kerr is the only person to have criticized Arudou (which is hardly the case) and because Peter Tasker is indeed a well-known Japan watcher; he's lived there for decades, published numerous books on or concerning Japan (fiction and non-fiction), he's a very frequent columnist for the Financial Times writing about Japan (probably over 100 columns over the years), and he's also written for Foreign Policy on Japan.

Thanks,

--GrandTheftVotto (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@GrandTheftVotto: you should consider starting an article on Tasker, as you seem to be familiar with him. I could help review a draft if you wanted. Your edit had several problems, but the two that made it unusuable were: the specific source chosen (a letter to the editor) was not appropriate for the type of content (negative coverage of a living person), and the unsourced characterization of the author of the comment as a "renowned Japan watcher." VQuakr (talk) 07:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---Many thanks for your comments, and understood re the Arudou edits!

GrandTheftVotto (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just an FYI - I think it's probably best if I go off and contribute to other pages... I think that this particular page has rather significant issues, and that I can't really contribute in a constructive way. I find the subject of the BLP to be fairly obnoxious, and therefore it probably isn't a good use of my time to edit the page or contribute, because it would be hard to do so without bias. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction with a few explanations and so on. I greatly appreciate it. I'll probably stick to pure fact based things, like sciences and so on. ChemicalG (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr, First of all I apologize for any mistakes made in my post, as I am new to wikipedia and did what I could after reading many posts about how to post and such. I just have a few questions about the edits you made to my post. I know that you deleted the list of clients because you said there are not other lists like such for companies like Hillerich & Bradsby, but they do list multiple athletes who have sported their brand throughout the years. It is of a different format than mine is, but a small list is existent. There was also more text in that section that was not just a list of athletes that I would like to keep. Pertaining to the bat making section, I am confused as to why you deleted it. You said it was "spammy" but I do not understand what this means or why it was deleted. I am planning on reverting that change. I see where my tone needed to be cleaned up in some spots, but some of the edits seem unnecessary and was wondering if you had further justification as to why you made them what they are. I guess I am just trying to learn and understand while trying to keep the post as helpful as possible for readers. Thank you for your time on my post and I hope to grow from this experience.

Dougs35 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Dougs35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougs35 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you know?

With Citoid in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:

Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:

After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 11:00 (noon) PDT (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal.

VQuakr, can I get your help on this and this? By that, I mean WP:Watching the articles and weighing in on the talk pages of those articles if needed. After seeing you in action here at the Campus rape talk page, here at the Abstinence-only sex education article, and elsewhere, I consider you one of the editors who understands Wikipedia's rules very well, and who consistently follows them the way they are supposed to be followed. I am open to any suggestions you have regarding the wording at the Lipstick lesbian and Butch and femme articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr. Another quick question about archiving my Talk Page.

I'd like to get my Talk Page to say what it says at the top of yours:

"This talk page is automatically archived. Any threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived."

But doing a side-by-side comparison of our Talk Pages in Edit mode has made me a bit leery of touching mine, for fear of messing things up. Could you configure my Talk Page easily to archive in the same way yours does? Would appreciate it. Thanks very much. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Arudoudebito:  Done. You can see what I did here. VQuakr (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr and thanks for your offer of help for NPP. I do have a problem in making the wrong calls occasionally and It seems there is a very low tolerance threshold for incorrect tags, which is sort of scaring me off as I don't want to get into arguments, because as a newbie to NPP I will always come off worse. It seems that if I get 10 speedys or Prods correct then nobody says a thing, if I get one wrong (or even if I tag for neutrality or cleanup it can upset somebody a lot!) then woe betide me. It's a delicate balancing act but then I want to help because I know Wikipedia has a big problem with vandalism, vanity pages and especially with people who think that Wikipedia offers them a free platform for advertising! I guess err on the side of caution, leave anything I'm not 100% sure about (buy surely that just passes the buck?) and some good advice that I will stick to is to only do ten a day. Do you have any more advice? Kind regards, Huddsblue (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Huddsblue: you are correct, 90% "right" on speedy deletion nominations is not even close to good enough. Speedy deletion is reserved for completely unambiguous cases only. If you are not absolutely certain, leave it for someone else or ask for help. PROD and AfD both have more time and the chance for community input, so an "incorrect" nomination on one of those is not as damaging. Maintenance tags are not as big of deal since they are easily reversible by any user. VQuakr (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've managed to upset people by using maintenance tags and Prod too! I think I'm gonna give NPP a pass and just do my own stuff like I did before Huddsblue (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The COI tag issue? Yes, if the article was not created by an editor with a declared COI and there is not an obvious issue (ie the account name matches the name of the article), then the COI tag could cause some trouble. Rather than give up NPP, how about working on patrolling articles that are several days old, obviously not candidates for speedy deletion, and performing the checklist items listed at WP:NPP ie categorization, referencing/filling in bare URL's, internal links, formatting, and fixing grammar errors? VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I recently made a change to the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal being a honorary citizen of Copenhagen. It appears that this is a widespread misunderstanding.

In 1998 a local council (that doesn't exist anymore) of a part of Copenhagen (Norrebro) made a decision to honor Mumia Abu-Jamal. This decision was not a decision of the city of Copenhagen and the case went all the way to the minister of internal affairs because it was stated that the honoring could be considered foreign policy.

There is no record of Mumia Abu-Jamal ever being an honorary citizen of the city of Copenhagen. To erase any doubt I have written the city of Copenhagen to confirm this and to provide a link to a list of honorary citizens of Copenhagen (if any). I will post here again when I get an answer.

I've got an official letter from a Copenhagen mayer (they have several). See the letter here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taitsiak (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

• This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello from Newberg! I have never edited a Wiki before with only an 8 grade education it's really not my thing however that water, gas, internal combustion direction it went hit a nerve. Thank you for cleaning it up for me. GO DUCKS! Titan-kronos (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, VQuakr. I like to inform you about this Sockpuppet investigation. I do not suspect you directly, but your name came up several times in the investigation, both as a partisipant in the editwar (e.g. diff, and in warning/reporting of the user on the "other side". I also noticed that you have started several sockpuppet investigations yourself, so I believe you are familiar with the consept, and that you may want to comment. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr -- thank you for your interest in the Shooting of Meagan Hockaday article. In the WP:EFFECT guidelines, there is the following qualification: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." The Meagan Hockaday investigation, when viewed in context of recent officer-involved shootings in Oxnard, along with the extensive news coverage, demonstrates a regional (if not national) interest in the shooting. Are there any suggestions for improving the article that I can consult? Any help in finding such resources would be much appreciated. Thank you. Vaparedes (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard/Archive 1#WordSeventeen. This is a good example of the problem. I see six bad nominations as potentially six lost new editors. The nominations get rejected but the damage is done. I suppose we can get him to say he will not do it again, but that hardly addresses the problem. He was only spotted by accident and could have done a lot more harm. We need much faster detection and, in my view, tougher sanctions. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Angela Black may be a real example. The subject is now aged about 65, probably retired. The tone is positive but not promotional. This first article by Anizhoni (talk · contribs) credibly claimed significance and gave sources, but was nominated A7 in less than an hour. The nomination was declined, but the newbie has done nothing since. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you know?

When you click on a link to an article, you now see more information:

The link tool has been re-designed:

There are separate tabs for linking to internal and external pages.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has created new interfaces for the link and citation tools, as well as fixing many bugs and changing some elements of the design. Some of these bugs affected users of VisualEditor on mobile devices. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

A test of VisualEditor's effect on new editors at the English Wikipedia has just completed the first phase. During this test, half of newly registered editors had VisualEditor automatically enabled, and half did not. The main goal of the study is to learn which group was more likely to save an edit and to make productive, unreverted edits. Initial results will be posted at Meta later this month.

Yes, and so I self reverted. First I've heard of it, TBH -- Kendrick7^talk 08:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack on 6 June 2015. I didn't originally include you, but you are welcome to join if you would like. I think your experience would be helpful. In particular, two editors have added conduct issues to the "Additional issues" section. I've tried to get them to remove them, but to no avail so far. But even if you want no part of the mediation itself, I could use any wisdom about the process itself, as this is my first experience with mediation at all. Can you critique my request and further actions to improve the request? I realize I have to wait for the Mediation Committee to get up to speed, but can I expect any more information or action this week?

I also am trying to get someone else to restore this edit by Volunteer Marek until mediation is rejected or completed. Here are my reasons: Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Mediation. BTW, I see no likelihood of success in trying to engage Volunteer Marek myself directly about this, but perhaps he will listen to others. Thank you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Mnnlaxer. I will have a look, but there is a good chance I will stay hands-off on that one unless the mediator wants me involved. Re you other request, please consider focusing on rebuilding a collaborative environment on the talk page rather than what the content of the article is right now. The attack occurred almost two years ago; how the content is presented over the next couple of weeks during mediation is not very important overall. VQuakr (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I understand and agree with the environment on the talk page and the long-term focus. I can myself improve on the first one. Thanks. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am most surprised by your contention that the recent McKinney, Texas pool incident is not notable. Just the existence of a video (actually several videos) of an angry white police officer pinning a black teen girl to the ground, then unholstering his gun and aiming it at two other black teens guarantees that this story will never be erased from the public record. Such a video has never before been seen.

Do you also think the recent video of the shooting of eight rounds into the back of a black man running away by a white officer is a non-event? How about the single-photo story of the Vietnamese girl child running away with burns on her body from her village, on which napalm has been dropped by US forces -- is that not notable? How about fire hoses aimed at blacks demonstrating for civil rights in the 1960s? Can that be eradicated?

from the Help page for Wikipedia:NEVENT:

"An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."

From the BBC:

McKinney video: Texas officer Eric Casebolt quits BBC News‎ - 1 day ago The US police officer filmed wrestling a black girl to the ground and pointing his gun at teenagers in Texas has stepped down, officials say. Protest over Texas pool party policing BBC News‎ - 1 day ago The police video that shocked America

From the Australian Broadcasting Corp:

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-09/protestors-march-through-mckinney2c-texas/6532494 Hundreds march through McKinney, Texas, calling for the firing of a police officer who threw a bikini-clad teenage girl to the ground at a pool party disturbance. 9 Jun 2015

From Deutsche Welle, Germany: DW News - Bonn, Germany - Broadcasting & Media ... https://www.facebook.com/dw.english DW's English service, bringing you global news from the heart of Europe. ... an out-of-control pool party in McKinney, Texas has revived the debate about police ...

From Singapore: Texas policeman resigns after video shows him toppling ... www.straitstimes.com/.../texas-policeman-resigns-after-... The Straits Times 1 day ago - Texas policeman resigns after video shows him toppling teen: ... Protestors listen during a rally against what demonstrators call police brutality in McKinney, Texas on June 8 ... The seven-minute video, viewed 9 million times on YouTube as of ... Enjoy 2 weeks of unlimited digital access to The Straits Times.

Your children's children will probably see the video of that officer pinning the girl in the bikini to the ground. Dratman (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dratman: notability discussions are based on guidelines, not silly melodrama such as your post above. This event is likely too trivial to have any lasting effects as required by WP:EFFECT; we are not locked in step with the 24 hour newsreel on a slow week. Please take to the article talk page rather than edit warring, and work on concision. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You have made more than 13 edits to the article we are discussing. All of your edits move the article in one clear direction: minimizing the incident. Now you claim the incident is not even notable, despite numerous articles in news organizations around the world. You are transparently violating NPOV. Meanwhile, I made one edit, which you reverted. Who exactly is edit warring here? Dratman (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up BLP violations can never be a 3RR violation, and is required by policy. They also were not edit warring, because edit warring is attempting to force a change by repeatedly editing - precisely what you did. VQuakr (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read the primary source article. News sources, dating from the time of an event, are primary sources: they are associated with an event in time, and they cannot provide any historic context because it hasn't occurred yet. See this guide from Georgia State University, for example. A huge reason encyclopedias are written from secondary sources is that they are separate from the event in question: they can put a concept in its historic context, concentrating on topics that have proven to be important in the long term, rather than things that are only momentarily important. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I think the policy needs to be amended then, because this is not clear. Seems like a reasonable subject for an RfC; if I post a draft RfC to your talk page would you be willing to review it? VQuakr (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: ok, so in sentence 2 of primary source: Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary. This covers all news accounts unless the reporter also happened to be a witness to the actual event. This seems pretty unambiguous; would you be willing to revise your response at Talk:Dennis Hastert? VQuakr (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No: this is not the point. News articles are part of the event itself: they're not independent, viewing the situation from a chronological distance. The article's writer has personal knowledge of the circumstances because they're ongoing. Please re-read the GSU page; if you're convinced that newspaper articles are secondary sources, please in turn convince GSU Archives that they're wrong. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you frame your reasoning in the context of existing policy rather than external sourcing guides? I still do not see where WP:PRIMARY says anything about news sources, but on the talk page you opposed changes to the policy. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

As I have told you multiple times, you have failed to understand what primary sources are, to the point that you believe me to be saying that all news stories are primary sources. Once again, news sources dating from the time of an event are primary sources for the event in question; at the same time, they're secondary sources for other events in the past, e.g. a news story about an event happening at the current edition of 7 World Trade Center is a primary source for that event, but if it talks about the destruction of the previous building, it's a secondary source for the terrorist attacks of fourteen years ago. External standards are the standards of scholarly activity, not something we can ignore, and we must not tolerate separate interpretations in contravention of them. Nyttend (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think, and have not thought at any point, that you are saying that all news sources are primary sources. Surely, though, you agree that our policies should align with our practices? Our policy does not appear to align with practice or scholarly standards now, and my proposed modification to the policy was an attempt to address that by adding "same historical context as an event" language to WP:PRIMARY. As it appears my proposed change was not optimal, I would appreciate your input about how best to update the policy. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for misreading or misunderstanding you. Yes, I thoroughly agree that policy should align with best scholarly practice. My suggestion would be something along the lines of "The definitions of 'primary source' vary from discipline to discipline; for example, medical definitions include journal articles with new discoveries, journalistic definitions include articles written by someone who observed an event, and historical definitions include sources written in the context of, at roughly the same time as, an event. Follow the definition appropriate to the field(s) in which you are writing." This is a profoundly rough draft: please don't propose anything with this wording. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This is WP, not a scholarly institution. The definition of primary sources in WP has nothing to do with the scholarly definition. If we applied your understanding, tens of thousands of articles will no longer be compliant. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Nothing to do with" seems like an overreach. WP is somewhat notorious for making up its own meta rules, from word definition re-appropriations to grammar and style idiosyncrasies. Ultimately, though, the relationship between WP's rules and the standards that govern academic writing are usually at least recognizable. It seems to me that a problem has been identified: the section of WP:NOR regarding primary and secondary sources does not provide adequate guidance on how to treat news sources. I think it is worthwhile to discuss how to close that gap, and I think WT:NOR is the best place to have that discussion. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, see my sandbox User:Cwobeel/sandbox2. Comments will be appreciated in the sandbox talk page - Cwobeel (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: it seems solid; I do not know how it could be moved to article space without looking like an attempt to bypass the AfD, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I will wait till that is closed and then attempt to re-ignite a discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The version you reverted to reintroduces a whole bunch of inaccuracies and grammatical problems. I am sick and tired of wholesale reverts that neglect to review what was changed.Scientus (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Scientus: when an editor fails to use edit summaries or uses misleading edit summaries, it invites wholesale reversion. It is not other editors' jobs to sift through your edits to see if any can be retained and which are just editing warring in the same rejected content. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually left the part you had reverted, about the "units" of "antisemitism", and brought the issue up on the talk page. What specifically did you object to?Scientus (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to restore the change changing the adjective "governmental" to a noun, I have no objection. Take the rest of the changes to the talk page if you must; they all clearly have already been contested in the past. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir,in the article homeopathy its told that the system is cheating people with their false laws ,but the truth is that its helping the sick in many ways its principles are proved facts ..medicines were well proved reproved and confirmed..recent development research works tells that homeopathy medicine has nanoparticle proving its wide range action...in the world still people believe homeopathy very much because its effective in most of the conditions.please do read the book of organon of medicine and materia medica pura written by dr Samuel Hahnemann ...still we have life examples of dr James Tylor Kent who was a strong follower came to homeopathy after it cured his wife illness,like that many people came to homeopathy after it proved its effectiness helping them from nearby death stage to life....plz do reconsider this small request.... Akhilssbhms (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, and thanks for the message! We have a requirement that information about medical claims be sourced to survey studies, not primary sources; it is located at WP:MEDRS. You may want to review it before editing in the homeopathy subject area. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not MLM so that pretty much explains it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jadeslair: don't forget to sign your posts. No, that does nothing at all to explain removal of links from a disambiguation page. VQuakr (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I did it by the sidebar, first time I used it. Since it is not mlm, I did not see the issue. You can rag on me all day, It does not bother me. I am learning in the process. Should a page about MLM link to a non MLM company? I forget to sign all the time but I am getting better at it. Jadeslair (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jadeslair: I assume you are talking about this? What exactly does that edit and revert have to do with MLM? No one is ragging on you. VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That was a mistake, my first time using the tool. sorry about that. Jadeslair (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello There are problems in Draft:Ultrasonic pulse velocity test. But as Civil engineer I couldn't find them as every thing looks ok from Engineers POV but it cant go through AfC. So please help me by highlighting the sections in the article which needs revision and in which manner. Thanks in advance Happy Editing. Prymshbmg (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Prymshbmg: I had a look; it needs a lot of work but seems ok to exist in article space. I moved it to Ultrasonic pulse velocity test. Encyclopedic tone includes avoiding use of the pronoun "we" and how-to instructions, which are probably the main reasons the AfC reviewers did not feel it was ready for mainspace. VQuakr (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank for considering the request I am on the article and improving it right now. Happy Editing Prymshbmg (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the article.Prymshbmg (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean by "not encyclopedical"? have you understood what was shown in that video? and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guga50 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Guga50: It was a ~10 second video, about 8 seconds of which were devoted to an image of some swans and a mushroom cloud. The very short animation showed a very schematic cutaway of an asymmetrical ovoid warhead (clearly not a swan device, which was symmetrical) detonating. There was no credit or source given to provide verifiability; indeed it appears to be copied from Youtube. VQuakr (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

swan desing was developed in order to provide a single detonator initiation. and i showed the form of explosive to provide this (which is still classified). and showed why it was called swan. other internet myths about two point initiations is bullshit. (yes it's not so simple. actually it has some grooves on its outer surface and made of several layers of explosives of different speed.) this was not from youtube. ok. maybe it's too much "lyric". i can leave only animation. just wanted to show link with its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guga50 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Just the animation still fails WP:V and WP:OR; we need more than your say-so to update the design description. Why did you credit Youtube in your upload if that is not where you got it? VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. then delete this entire conversation. thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guga50 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the 2 sentence version looks like, but it's been referred to in quite a detailed manner in the section above by Mnnlaxer. A significant minority view that gets references from major RS and major foreign actors isn't a FRINGE view. Andrevan@ 18:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A FRINGE version of the theory would be the speculation as to the motivation or means of a false flag attack through self-published sources or blogs etc. I'm not sure there's a version like that on the mediation talk currently but there are some references to that in your and others' comments. NPR, Reuters, AP etc. all seem to be reporting on a version of the theory supported by the Russian gov't - that's not FRINGE. Andrevan@ 20:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! VQuakr (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: this, if you haven't already re-reverted, I'd suggest leaving it alone, per my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DisuseKid reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: ). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hardly worth edit warring (or reporting) over. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that user has even read the EW thread, let alone plans to change the behavior that resulted in the report. I don't see that as a good sign, but I'll step away for now (they are hitting several of the same articles as me, so that may change). Sorry if I misread the Charleston situation. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you want to participate here, or if you've already been following along: User_talk:Volunteer_Marek#Collapsed_comment

Is my memory shaky, or did we just go through this crap with another editor on the same page a couple of years ago? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There have been a number of topic bans related to Syria, and on Ghouta in particular there have been topic bans on both sides of the "whodunnit" fence. They all start to look alike after a while. More participants on that user talk page thread is absolutely the last thing that is needed. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of the "intelligence agent" calumny -- but yeah, the thread is a mess, and it looks like it's basically resolved (for now) anyway. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if you could have a look there or join the discussion. I was going to revert "shooter" to "suspected shooter" and delete some media dramatizations about obsessing over murder & fear of "nail ghosts", since they're discussing a living person's early life based on one article consisting of wild speculations. But I also figure it's better to discuss these things first.. Ferociouslettuce (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The only place I see "shooter" being used to describe the person is in the reference titles. We do not control those. VQuakr (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Did you happen to read Wikipedia:Truth matters before you reverted that. Also two out of three people said it did not matter and I say it is a lie so it does not belong, I know Wikipedia is not a democracy but Wikipedia:Truth matters in addition to what people said. Jadeslair (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's an essay. WP:EW is not. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is an essay, am i missing something. Jimbo Whales thinks the truth is important, so do I and so does Wikipedia:Libel

You are missing that using an essay to justify edit warring is a no-go. VQuakr (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, it appeared that consensus was reached. Only one person objected. Out of 4 if you include myself. That is addition to the essay. Jadeslair (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In that proposal I see zero support for your proposal, and two editors opposing (myself and Rhode Island Red). I disagree that consensus has been reached. VQuakr (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Local subscription list • Subscribe to the multilingual edition

Did you know?

You can add quotations marks before and after a title or phrase with a single click.

Select the relevant text. Find the correct quotations marks in the special character inserter tool (marked as Ω in the toolbar).

Click the button. VisualEditor will add the quotation marks on either side of the text you selected.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team have been working on mobile phone support. They have fixed many bugs and improved language support. They post weekly status reports on mediawiki.org. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving language support and functionality on mobile devices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of United States mobile virtual network operators. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note on the user in question has been asked to go to the talk page for just this purpose more than once. I and another user in October have asked this person to not post this information on the page, as the information is not pertaining to the page. You will also find that the user refuses to discuss it, but continues to post her information anyway, continuously. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)