User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2016

Thanks for recent edit enhancements relating to Trump Initiative. I am trying to add Michael Sexton but am running into trouble and can not find how to resolve.(disambiguation). Sexton played a significant role^[1] and would like to fill out the background article. Any help or direction would be appreciated. --Wikipietime (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikipietime: no problem. Use parenthetical disambiguation. I suggest Michael Sexton (entrepreneur). VQuakr (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to you for removing speedy deletion tag from my article.. And also for trying to stop the terror being created by this Asshole --> User:Ktr101.............

--Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstraw99: The article had no claim as to what he actually did (especially since claiming to be a politician can be a vague way of claiming notability when there is none). You improved it though, so I agree with VQuakr's removal of the tag. Also, if you continue to insult people on this site, you will be blocked, as that is far from civil behavior. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Yes, please do remember to be civil to other editors. VQuakr (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

just FYI, I have requested page semiprotection for Oath Keepers after reverting recent IP vandalism and noticing the note claiming to be from the group's "media director" with an implied goal of having a coordinated POV editing group (e.g. " I and other members of Oath Keepers Leadership") attempt to tilt wording on the article unduly. Thanks for your note back to him regarding the policies but as it was less than 48 hours between the article's protection expiring and the IP vandalism resuming... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please address the NPOV issues with this article, or it may be nominated for deletion! The article can be editted to address the issues or a discussion can be held at Talk:Detention and search of Indian VIPs at US airports#Neutral Point of view.--Petebutt (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have copied this to the original authors talk page--Petebutt (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: NPP - this, are you going to Wikimania? I am. I hope to be facilitating an extra-programme discussion on this critical cross-Wiki issue. If you are going, we should elaborate something together. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung and Jytdog: unfortunately, no I am not going. I am interested in with this issue, though. I think there are also some immediately actionable items that could be pursued on en.wiki as a stopgap - particularly applying a technical user right to the action of reviewing an article and adding a minimum article age requirement to CSD criteria such as A1, A3, and A7. At one point you were working on an RfC; is that still in the works? VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

It's still in the works and were just waiting for Σ to come up with stats we need for the argument. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I've decent with raw data if someone showed me how to do queries for that sort of thing... teach a guy to fish, right? VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

i am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcaine346 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually processing from a list of 30,000 stale drafts mostly from vanished users. If I fully cleaned up every article I promoted I'd never get through the job I'm doing. Allowing other users interested in the topic to complete the cleanup is working pretty well. Legacypac (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you see this? Dear god! Adam9007 (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I'll post to your talk page shortly. VQuakr (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I was wondering if you could point me at the diff for the personal attack you've accused @Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: of making at Talk:Oath_Keepers. Thanks! SQL^{Query me!} 01:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: that'd be the spurious accusation of harassment here. I linked it in the notification as well. VQuakr (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you were 100% clear, and that that diff wasn't a mistake. In my opinion - that isn't a personal attack. SQL^{Query me!} 01:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: thank you for your opinion. I hope you don't object to me following up, though. Would you say that is because that diff doesn't violate WP:AOHA, because it did violate WP:AOHA but not WP:NPA, or for some other reason? VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It really doesn't strike me as a personal attack - and seems a lot like wikilawyering to me. They don't want to talk to you? You can't discuss content changes without talking, so I imagine this will be short lived - and an empty threat at best. Additionally, I probably wouldn't choose templates to start a discussion with a regular. SQL^{Query me!} 01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: probably correct that it is an empty threat, but the behavioral stuff spilling into article talk space (as opposed to WP space and User talk summaries) is pretty plainly problematic. I didn't start with a template; his previous harassment accusation and non-template replies from myself and another editor are here. VQuakr (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Stop harassing people, stop randomly accusing anyone who doesn't agree with your edits (especially when you make ones that aren't supported by your source or the talk you're claiming it's supported by) of "edit warring" and randomly throwing around harassment built message board posts trying to get them blocked. Start behaving civilly. YOU are the one edit warring, by policy, and abusing policy trying to abuse the blocking system to win your narcissistic little content dispute.

I'm still waiting on the apology from you and I doubt I'll see it. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your continued harassment of me with lies and twisted statements and stalking of my edits needs to stop now. You are wasting everyone's time and trying my patience. Don't comment on my edits. Don't talk about me anymore period. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:HA#NOT; WP:AOHA. As I noted on ANI I recognize that we are far enough away from the pinnacle of Graham's hierarchy that this is unlikely to be resolved by direct interaction between us, but it is not reasonable for you to expect other editors not to interact with you in WP spaces when you are so prolific. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

How to switch between editing environments

Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.

Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your behaviour in a talk page. The thread is Uncivility problems in Talk:Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Thank you. Elendaíl (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the sources in my submission are not the same as in the discussion. The lawsuit needs an objective coverage. See my entry in the talk page. (I can remove the source of the lawsuit text, if that is seen as problematic) -- Egil (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, will discuss there. It just needs consensus since several editors have contested similar additions. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comments here targeting me are pure bad faith: . It is not me who initiated this dicussion and other contributors made most comments. Before your intervention, it was 3 vs 1 and 1 neutral with no argument but just attacks against me by the one who you defended.

If someone would have to drop the stick it is the friend that you defended.

I add that you argued that both version are the same and you prefer the more simple. The more simple is clearly the one suggested by Zero0000.

You should me shamed of your behaviour. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pluto2012: perhaps I am missing something. That section is discussing this proposed edit by you, correct? To what "friend" are you referring? In what way did I "defend" anyone? In what way do you feel that the diff you linked above violates WP:AGF? VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You should dtop the stick.

You was caught supporting a proposal that you didn't even read and then you based your support on simplicity whereas the alternative proposal (Nishidani) is obviously more simple given shorter by 3 words.

Pluto2012 (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for that explanation of how that constitutes a violation of WP:AGF. Mebbe grab a cup of tea and some perspective? VQuakr (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected your talkpage for 2 days regarding recent issues here. Please let me know if you'd prefer it to be unprotected. SQL^{Query me!} 03:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you assert WP:MUSIC doesn't apply to fictional stuff? Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the subject of the article isn't a band; the subject is fictional characters in a comic. WP:FICTION was never accepted as a notability guideline, so GNG is the applicable one. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

VQuakr, - I want to thank you, so much, for your quick approval of and kind adjective about my new New World Alliance article earlier today. I'd worked so hard on it, and I felt it was well done and interesting and even timely, given the politics of the day; but you never know what the Authorities will think. Go, Wikipedia! - Babel41 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr: Please see a few clarifications and suggestions regarding your revises to this article. 1) The name of the technology that the article is about is called "Copper MicroGroove." 2) Copper MicroGroove not a brand name. It is a trademarked technology (developed by the International Copper Association that develops and improves copper technologies). The MicroGroove license is offered for free to manufacturers who find that it is an improvement over current technologies they use. The brands you are concerned about are the final products that are sold by the manufacturers, for example, air conditioners. MicroGroove is not a brand. It is a technology in high-efficiency air conditioners and other heat exchangers. 3) The new title you created is inaccurate. A possible descriptor title could be "Internally-grooved small diameter copper tube." But no one will find this as it is clumsy. The industry knows the technology as Copper MicroGroove - please see the references. It is a new technology, commercial only since 2005, and is now known. So I suggest the title of the article be reverted back to "Copper MicroGroove" for the benefit of the readership. 4) One of your comments speaks about deleting "weird sentences about two coil technologies." Please read the original sentence again. It speaks about alternative technologies to MicroGroove...i.e., Microchannel air-cooled condenser, and copper micro-channel. So including these sentences brings perspective about alternatives to the MicroGroove technology addressed in this article. Therefore, I request that this deletion be reverted as well. 5) Please feel free to delete any word(s) that seem promotional to you. That was not my intention. And let me know what else I can do to delete the upper tag box - that was what I tried to do by including peer-reviewed references published about the technology. Sincerely, Enviromet (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

A "trademarked technology" sounds a heckuva lot like a brand. Technologies are patented; brands are trademarked. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You said you wanted to talk about the edits on Schottky diode Zedshort (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You did not respond to my specific questions to you; you responded to the other editor. Try again. Zedshort (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I replied to the content-related items. Personal attacks in article talk space are going to garner escalation, not replies. VQuakr (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Counting day 3 now, still waiting for you to respond at Talk:List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#RFC_to_sort_out_this_mess. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz: wow, two pings and a talk page message... all about the same thing. You know RfC's run for 30 days and a week is a not unreasonable amount of time to await a reply, right? That said, I should be able to reply tonight, probably. VQuakr (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

One other question - we are talking about the interval from to , right? Because that looks like less than two days, not over three. VQuakr (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

.. in helping with this article or similar ones? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: thanks for the message! I am not a big fan of editing lists, just my personal preference. I think I would be more suited to helping with stub creation or improvement on the individual meeting houses. I also do not expect to have much time to substantially increase my Wiki-workload this summer; lots on my real-world plate.

Have you thought about joining and/or soliciting help at WP:HSITES, and possibly starting a sub-project there for sharing of sources that might apply to the articles for several of these meeting houses? VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I do a lot at WP:NRHP and some places on the list already have generally small articles. I now have some access to more detailed sources, but they are ok as far as they go. I also know a few folks in PA and surrounding states (possible lists there also). I thought I might look around for other friends to see if they are interested in doing some work on the meeting house articles. If I have the time, I'd probably aim for an artilce on each one built befor the Civil War. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2016 Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

It's quick and easy to insert a references list.

Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "Insert" menu and click the "References list" icon (three books).

If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.

Finally, click "Insert" in the dialog to insert the References list. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.

Hello VQuakr, thanks for the note. I understand your concern about potential advertising/promotional content. However, I would point out that the updates were written to legitimately improve the articles, from a neutral point of view, without creating overly abundant links, and without puffery or self promotion (to quote a few of the guidelines). The citations link to unbiased, authoritative content from a notable organization. I believe the changes that I submitted are in alignment with wikipedia's guidelines and are helpful to readers. Your thoughts? Whoush (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Whoush: hi, and again welcome! I assume you are referring to the hvac.com website? This is definitely not an authoritative or even particularly reliable source; it is the commercial website of an HVAC company in Ohio that also does not appear to be notable (in the sense of the term as used on Wikipedia). An example of a better source to use would be the tertiary ASHRAE handbooks or the sources that those handbooks cite. See you around! VQuakr (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For being so level-headed. They say I'm level-headed? You're way level-headeder. Leveler-headed. Of levelleded-headier-dider. Okay, your levels are headier. I'm sticking with that one. And your English is way better too! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately it looks like the the bureaucratic minds won out over the thinking ones, but I'll continue to do what I can. VQuakr (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. Rules are rules, so they are saying. I still think this is a case of WP:IAR. Thanks again for your input there. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you posted a warning on User talk:Ritsaiph that if he vandalized Wikipedia again, he would be blocked from editing. I left him a note about a different vandalization, this edit where he replaced a picture of two people at the Trayvon Martin protest with a picture of gorillas. How do I go about getting him blocked for this? thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Rockypedia, ordinarily you would make a report to WP:ANI. In this case, I've saved you the trouble and blocked the editor indefinitely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr. I used to be a Quaker myself. Now I'm an even less formal Christian. At any rate, you have obviously seen our little "tempest in a teapot" between News Guy and myself. I was wondering if you might be able to respond to my latest request at the Finicum talk page? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I replied. Please don't do things like this; you made it look like I had created that section title since mine was the next signature below. VQuakr (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey, we had a better week ending Aug 16th. I'll give it a go, time permitting. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you not wanting to be part of this. You appeared to be one of the most interested. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I am indeed interested, but headed on vacation soon so it's a poor time to start getting involved in complex-ish discussion. VQuakr (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but your typo edit just lost me one hour's worth of new content due to ec. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I didn't notice how recently you'd been working on it. I took the red phrase at the top of the page to mean "don't !vote", not "don't edit." VQuakr (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

You are invited to participate in the 20,000 Challenge, aiming for 20,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr/Archives,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If you or Marek want to propose the content Sayerslle is adding, I won't mind / would discuss it with you. But the guy is banned; I don't want to have him just editing it again (and insulting people) as if he still had the right to the consideration he never gave others. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet: quality/sourcing issues of the content aside, I'm not about to play proxy for a banned user. We have the standard offer if he wants to rejoin WP. Keep doing what you're doing, and feel free to ping me to the discussion if anyone has additional concerns. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr/Archives. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr/Archives/2016, I saw a discussion in passing that mentioned new pages patrol and Special:NewPagesFeed, and thought you may be interested: it's at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#X1. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))