User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2014

DYK for Tsunami fish

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the united states

If the only issue you have with my edit was the order of the citations, then that is easily fixed by placing the two previous cites in the middle of the sentence directly after the first, unedited clause. That would not be an issue for me and either one of you editors could have stated your issue from the beginning instead of deleting my edit without explaining why. However, your message seems to indicate that you have other issues with my edit and if so, it is incumbant upon those of you who deleted my edit to explain exactly why, instead of just deleting my edit. My edit was made because the original published statement is verifiably misleading and false. The publishing of the misleading and false statements in the first place is what is wrong and out of order, so when that happens, edits should be expected. I am not making "threats" of any kind. Publishing misleading and false statements as fact is misconduct and that misconduct is not my fault, nor does it have anything to do with me, I have only pointed it out to you. Anyone (not just me) is free to legitimately report what is published on Wikipedia to anyone they want, so that is no "threat" and trying to characterize it as such will not change the facts. I asked you what makes any Wikipedia editor think they can publish misleading and false statements as fact without someone editing the falsehood? If you are claiming that Wikipedia policy allows for that, I think that either you are in error, or if that were the policy, I don't think I have to go into much detail of what can happen when entities establish policies that are illegitimate. The way I read the Wikipedia policies, edits were supposedly welcomed, and since, in the History of this article, it appears that neither of the editors who deleted my edits are among the original authors of this article, I don't see why you should be supporting their deletions of my edit without explaining your actions in some detail (which is what you did). ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly did I "delete"? Here you say, "If you persist in publishing misinformation and refuse to publish accurate facts, I will have to report your misconduct to authorities and media outside of this Wikipedia network." This is a clear violation of our policy on legal threats, and if you want to edit here then you should consider removing or striking it. The source you have added to the article here and in subsequent edits has other issues, as well. Again, the path forward is discussion with other editors, not edit warring - this is, after all, a collaborative effort. VQuakr (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What was deleted was the testimony of the DEA Administrator who clearly cited the source of her statements (which I directly quoted) from her article. For the record, this was my revision: "Teen use of marijuana in the Netherlands where it is sold legally and openly is lower than in the United States because '[a]fter marijuana use became legal, consumption nearly tripled among 18- to 20-year-olds.... [and then] [a]s awareness of the harm of marijuana grew, the number of cannabis coffeehouses in the Netherlands decreased 36 percent in six years.'" These are the DEA Administrator's cited sources: White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, "What Americans Need to Know about Marijuana," 10; Dutch Health, Welfare, and Sports Ministry, report, April 23, 2004; University of Tilburg (Netherlands), "Coffeeshops in the Netherlands 2003," September 2004. I do not know why those who oppose my edit want to leave out the authoritative testimony showing why the consumption is now lower in the Netherlands and the fact that the consumption nearly tripled among young people before it decreased. I object to any attempts to hide that information from the public. The current statement about the Netherlands that the reverting editors and you are pushing excludes pertinent facts, is published out of context, and is a clear misrepresentation.

You did not delete/revert my edit yourself, but you supported the editors who did the deleting. And by the way, what the editors who deleted my edit have done is called a "threat" and "edit warring" because they repeatedly restored their preferred version of article content and then the first "threat" came from editor Muboshgu as he posted this threat in my talk section, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed....Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. 01:07, 15 January 2014" That is a threat and is contrary to Wikipedia's policy which is that "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold." My edit was in no way unconstructive or disruptive as Muboshgu claimed. Wikipedia's policy is also that a "controversial edit is not regarded as edit warring" and "editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_war. Editor Muboshgu stated a "point of view" objection when he deleted my edit which is not a valid basis for reverting an edit ("00:57, 15 January 2014‎ Muboshgu(talk | contribs)‎ . . (67,875 bytes) (-474)‎ . .(Undid revision 590748303 by ResearchfirmUSA (talk) POV source, that's the reason)") The record shows that my edit was reverted without good cause and then without any explanation by the editors who deleted my edit, of a good reason for deleting my edit, first Muboshgu threatened me as I stated above, and then you threatened me with blocking. You also accused me of making "legal threats" which is a patently false accusation. Take another look at my statement that you quoted and you will see that I made no "legal threats" at all. Anyone has a legal right to report public information to anyone they please, that's common knowledge, not to mention that it doesn't require my involvement for anyone to see all of this for themselves since it is all publicly posted information. You can imagine whatever you like but your misinterpretations and mischaracterizations are what is clear and evident. I would suggest that you stop making threats and discuss your issues with my edit as Wikipedia policy dictates.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I tried. Wikipedia is not a battleground, but I get the distinct impression you are eager to make it one. If you change your mind and decide to pursue discussion on the talk page I can assist; since so far you have attacked literally everyone with whom you have interacted I do not think there is much I can do for you. VQuakr (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This IS the talk page, and for the 3rd, 4th, I'm losing track of how many times now, I have asked you to discuss your issues with my edit as Wikipedia policy dictates, but instead of discussing your issues with my edit, you continue to attack me and make threats against me. I can't be any clearer that this: You have only stated the one issue with my edit (i.e. the order of the citations) so, what are your substantive issues with my edit? I'm the one who is trying to "discuss"; you are the one who quite obviously has been unwilling or unable to do so.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand part of the confusion. Discussion of changed to the article should go on the article talk page at Talk:Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States; I suggest starting a new thread there. I doubt the other interested editors are watching my personal user talk page, which is where we are now. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing anything further regarding the article content on the article talk page, and will do so if I am so inclined, but the record shows that when you contacted me, and also after you leveled your accusations against me, you also specifically invited me to respond to you, personally, on your talk page: " feel free to contact me if you have questions. VQuakr (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)" You provided the link to your talk page, so that is why I responded to those issues here. Carry on, and I will take up further issues with the article on the article talk page when and if I choose to do so. If you continue this discussion further on this page, however, I reserve the option to respond to you here.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You indeed are invited to post here. Since you are relatively new, I just wanted to be certain you understood the difference in function between user talk and article talk pages. I didn't "level any accusations" at you; the warning for edit warring was clearly warranted and quite standard fare. User talk pages exist to communicate with a specific user, while article talk pages exist to discuss improvements to an article. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you did level accusations against me and your opinion that that was warranted is precisely that, just an opinion. The evidence is clear, for anyone who cares to look at it, that your threats and accusations towards me were biased and unwarranted. Did you post any "warning for edit warring" on editor Muboshgu's talk page? How about warning him for his lack of civility towards me? No, I see that you did not, yet it was editor Muboshgu who engaged in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edit to restore his preferred version of article content, and he did that without stating any valid cause for doing so. Then instead of civilly providing me with a valid cause for his reversions, he posted a threat and false accusation on my talk page. Anyone can go and see the evidence for themselves. Anyone can also see that you did NOT put a warning for edit warring on my talk page. What you put on my talk page was a false accusation about "legal threats." You see, you keep changing your story in an effort to justify the actions you've taken in this matter, and I am not interested in these kinds of games, so I propose that you think whatever you want to think, but the evidence is clear so the public can make up its own mind.ResearchfirmUSA (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed your warning

VQuakr, You are correct, and I thank you for your input. I was mistaken in that edit. I have removed your warning from my talk page, as I just found out that such is permissible per Wikipedia policy. My original reply to your warning was:

Per your suggestion, I have set up an RFC on the talk page. I think you and I are both probably tired of this recent discussion where neither of us has budged an inch. I apologize for this. You will probably be vindicated in the Rfc. I will stand back and let it progress to where it will. I am done arguing this point for now. By the way, I'm a Quaker too (if that is why your 'handle' is VQuakr). Good night. Scott P. (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I identify as Quaker. And agreed, no notice/warning on a user talk page is intended to be a perpetual badge of shame. Good night! VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

NPP noticeboard

Thank you for telling me about the new noticeboard. I apologize that my request for autopatrolled status is a round-about way to combat just a part of this problem. It simply had not occurred to me that there could be a way to combat the problem directly, since it seemed to be entirely in line with behaviour that I've seen on established pages by self-proclaimed vandalism fighters (fortunately, of the two individuals who spring to mind, one (an admin) has retired, and the other is taking a wikibreak (in neither case apparently due to my efforts to reason with them, I'm slightly disappointed to say)). Thanks again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem; it is better for NPP to have you autopatrolled as well since it makes our patrolling easier. NPP is a challenging task and one that generates a lot of feedback, not all of it civil. For legal reasons, it is also a necessary task since Wikipedia has a legal obligation to rapidly address copyright violations and libel. VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DJ Brian Dawe

Thank you for your input on this article. I agree the article does need some work, but Brian clearly is very notable in his field and beyond. A quick google search will prove that without a doubt. My question to you, as a much more experienced wikipedia user is how are articles like this one for "Ruen (DJ)" not flagged for notoriety issues when it is clearly a less notable person in the same field? Should a discography be added to Brian's entry? What additions can be used here to remove the notoriety issue? ReadyToEdit (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally studio albums are listed in a musical artist's bio page while mixtapes are not. It will always be possible to find a "less notable" example on Wikipedia, which is why we use notability guidelines rather than comparing subject to other stuff. I did have a look online regarding his notability, and it appeared very borderline to me. I see you have fixed some of the dead links, so that might be an improvement. VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Nice to meet you @ WP:WER. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you, too! VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Why i'm warned ? I'm trying to write about Criticisms of Jayalalitha with proper references and in this case how do i violate anything ?. Looks like people are desperately trying to stop public from writing the true facts! I want to write about Criticisms of Jayalalitha and if you could support the article you are welcome to write otherwise just shut up! Icommoner (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit here, immediately review WP:BLP, WP:EW, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPOV. You have violated them all in your last few edits. Your creation of Criticisms of Jayalalitha was a blatant attempt at gaming a consensus at Jayalalithaa that your coverage of "criticisms" was undue and constituted an attack. If you disagree, then work with the other editors at Jayalalithaa to develop a consensus at to a BLP-compliant solution. VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

January 31, 2014 edit NPOV

Edits to Gentech Pharmaceutical. It seems that although we have cited the exact same source, you are taking some quotes and I am taking others (from the same source). I would rather not go back and fourth on this, but I do want to make accurate edits to the page. All items deemed to be promotional should be removed, I agree on this and my edits took those out, but instead of making edits and taking an NPOV view you totally reverted the page. If you could, please respond and lets see if we can make an accurate page for the community. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteVz (talk • contribs) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Gentech Pharmaceutical, see Wikipedia:Help desk#Edits and NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon's reply at the help desk seems to cover the issue pretty comprehensively. Your claim "you are taking some quotes and I am taking others (from the same source)" is blatantly false. VQuakr (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

DanteVz, as I explained at Wikipedia:Help desk#Edits and NPOV, Wikipedia is not here to advertise your products. I suggest that you find a business model that does not depend on us providing free advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help

I have created an article An Astrologer's Day. It is one of the most notable short story of R. K. Narayan an Indian story writer. It was created few days ago. I have sourced it properly with reliable references. But some one has nominated it for deletion and the reason is "It is not a notable short story" instead it is given in the lead section that it is first short story of world famous collection of short story book called Malgudi Days. So, can you please review the article and give a conclusion in the AfD. Thank you. Rudra john cena (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually I just edited that article. I expect that the discussion will be closed as keep (AfD's usually run for a week); the editor that nominated it saw the editorial problems with the article and made a mistake by nominating it rather than identifying those fixable problems. I would suggest, though, that you take some time and rework the article - is needs a complete rewrite. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: AIV

So as not to clutter up AIV: I don't think that falls under forum shopping, especially when I suggested on AIV taking the issue elsewhere. I think forum shopping would be if I declined the request and said that the edits were not vandalism, then you still took the issue to AIV. Usually though declined or other commented requests are left up for a period at AIV in case vandalism continues or so another administrator can take a look (they may look differently on the same issue given differences in past experience, skillset, etc.) Hope this helps! Best, Spencer^T♦C 22:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! That was about what I figured, but I did want to be straightforward about what was going on. VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Burden

You should prob read WP:BURDEN.

I realise you'll probably just remove this, but it doesn't matter; it's just a helpful hint. Maybe you'll read it and see what I mean...maybe you will undo this and disregard everything I'm typing here. But it's worth a try. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page regarding the cited content that you removed. If you are referring to your disruptive fact tags, then please read WP:BURDEN yourself: it applies to "material challenged or likely to be challenged." Warren is the third largest city in Michigan does not need an inline citation in an article about a public official. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I challenged certain facts. They should not be reinstated without appropriate refs. That's fair enough? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If you challenge basic facts such as city size in a biography, then you are being disruptive. Mundane facts only need to be cited in the most relevant article (it is cited at Warren, Michigan). Only information about the living person falls under WP:BLP; by contrast, your Vance example below was fine to remove on sight. VQuakr (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that I - as a reader - do not know that "Warren is the third largest city in Michigan". Maybe it is... I do not know. I need to verify it. That's the idea of WP:V. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Quak (if I may call you that), what I mean is, we need to be careful about living people. See [1]. Maybe his Dad is Vance, maybe he is not; but I hope you can imagine how much distress it can cause to living people, if 'facts' like that pop up on Wikipedia.

Best, 88.104.24.150 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

My username is short enough that it usually not need be abbreviated. How about "VQ" if you have a keystroke quota? I actually am quite familiar with WP:BLP, thanks. That is not what WP:BURDEN says. The thrust of WP:V is that content must be verifiable. In this case, of course, you the reader could click on the internal link and read more about Warren if you wanted. Not everything needs an inline citation. VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 09:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi there. Regarding your edit war warning I think you need to actually review a situation prior to slapping a edit war warning on one editors page. The edit war you speak of actually spans multiple pages and has had the same revisions done by myself another editor and an admin. Furthermore the consensus has been so far that this information should not be spammed across multiple articles. In the future please use a little more discretion prior to using warning templates. Also since edit wars are typically two sided it is best practice to post this warning on both parties, it also helps eliminate any chance of someone thinking that there is bias is the one tagging.Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I did review the situation fully before posting the reminder to your talk page. The other editor had already been warned (by you), so there was no reason to repeat the warning. As a reminder, do not edit war even when you believe you are right. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VQuakr. You have new messages at Rudra john cena's talk page.
Message added 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: yup, they seem to be being a little slow on the uptake. Maybe encouraging them to join WP:India to focus on writing rather than patrol-type activities? Is there any reason another editor could not be bold and remove the N/A user boxes from their page? VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence. Since you had some involvement with the Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Icarus4 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Adminship

What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you have asked this question of a number of editors recently; what do you think of asking an admin or experienced user to review your ideas for nominations first? They could co-nominate if they agree that your suggested noms are likely to pass. VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

About Criticism of the scientific status of neuroscience

Hello, I noted you marked the article I wrote Criticism of the scientific status of neuroscience, for a deletion. I do not want it to be deleted. I would appreciate if you can help me to improve it to meet wikipedia criteria. It is not my original research, I made it after the articles and books mentioned in the bibliography, particularly this one and this one. I hope you can tell me which parts caused you to suspect it was original research, and which parts made you believe it was a "fork pov". The topic of the article is an obvious reason to talk about criticism of the neuroscience, although the article was not made just to talk against them, but to expose the criticism that has been made about it.

I appreciate your help. --Refulgir (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I see another editor sent this to AfD, so it would be more efficient to continue this conversation at WP:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the scientific status of neuroscience. I will post a more full reply there. You linked the same PDF twice above; did you mean for that to be two different sources? In any case, I unfortunately do not read Spanish well enough to get much from anything but the introduction which is published bilingually. Is this source a reliable source in an academic contenxt (ie, was it peer-reviewed)? Where was it originally published? VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back around. Likewise, look forward to working with you! VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Write in wrong wikipedia

Hi VQuakr, thanks very much for your mention. I have requested for deleting them.

I adapted the AWB to create these articles, about Representatives of the China National People's Congress. But the software has some problems that the articles were actually created in En-wiki, rather than Chinese ones. I restarted the software, but did not find my editions in Zh-Wikipedia, and simply thought these articles never be created. Thank you and sorry for causing troubles for you!

Best Regards, --Walter Grassroot |talk 09:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Grassroot: no trouble at all. Thanks for all your hard Wiki-work! VQuakr (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You may check

. . . Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#adding_links_to_support_my_edit Tito☸Dutta 01:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, they are forum shopping as fast as they learn about new meta pages. I left a very brief reply. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

encyclopedic

Hi VQuakr, what do you mean by encyclopedic? another link? to prove this? Thanks Sarah1971 04:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia, by definition as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary source. This means that it sums up information, primarily from secondary sources. The information you added needs a secondary source to show that it belongs in an encyclopedia, as this shows that it has been discussed by others, outside of the context of Sony's own website. VQuakr (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Candelas, Arvada, CO

Good evening, I couldn't help but notice you deleted 50,000 characters from my article which just took me eight months to collaborate. I need further direction to expand and reinstate the information contained within the article (I had just been working on formatting the date specific info into a vertical timeline). My scientific references which are the basis for the controversy were specific to the plot of land subject to the article. I'm also somewhat unable to grasp why a TONE warning would be added to the page, as you've deleted it. Thank you, ZoomJag (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@ZoomJag: sorry to hear you spent so much time on it, but the article needs a fundamental rewrite to be neutral. Most of the sources and information you had pertained to Rocky Flats, not to the planned development. There were also a lot of problems with accuracy in what you wrote - many of the sources were unreliable or poorly interpreted; it made the article look much more like an activist website than a dispassionate, neutral discussion of the topic based on reliable sources. Suggest we take further discussion to the article talk page, since there is a lot of room for expansion now. I took off the tone tag since I agree that the issue is largely addressed. VQuakr (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Carry on using uncalled for warnings but it is you who is blanking the article. ‎ 86.167.166.159, 19:40, 16 March 2014

Assuming you are ZoomJag, can you please log back in? It is difficult to communicate with a dynamic IP. I have explained why I have concerns about this material on the article talk page; please discuss there rather than restoring the material without addressing the problems. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you very much, VQuakr! I succeeded to link to the Japanese version of “Funassyi”. I should do this by myself, because I have another plan to translate the Thai language version. By the way, do you live in Portland, Oregon? What a coincidence! I’ve been to U.S. only once. The place IS the Oregon state! I visited Portland, Salem and Brownsville. I like Oregon very much. Anyway, thank you again for your “Stand by Me”.

Akiko718atWiki (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Kato images

I've contacted Kato directly, and should have her permission on the one image on her wiki article, and a replacement image for the other on the main Steampunk page, shortly. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, thank you for helping with cleanup on the article. Though I've been around a while, I still have a lot to learn. Any advice would always be welcome! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration regarding Venus dispute

You are notified herewith .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Clarification_request:_CASE.2FDECISION — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Action figure

Regarding your flagging of the Kato action figure: difficult to find sources on that. I did however find what appeared to be a press release from Steampunk Couture and Big Bad Toy Store (the company that sells Flirty Girl Collectibles), that was reposted on several toy-related tumblr accounts. Would linking to one of those suffice? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request

The request for arbitration involving you has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 18:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for formal mediation

I am the authorized representative and Publicist for R&B singer Chauncey Black. I'm requesting for the process and formal mediation for his Wiki page. There is a disgruntled former Producer that insists on continuously changing and deleting content from my client's page.

The name "Thomas Telifero" is being inserted into the page as the creator of the group "Blackstreet". Although this person may have been affiliated with the group decades ago, his personal testimony to having named and created the group is NOT verifiable therefore can not be included on Wikipedia.

The user should be blocked from making changes to the Chauncey Black and Blackstreet Wikipedia pages.

Thanks for your help!

TruthContributor (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@TruthContributor: if unsourced, negative biographical content is being added to Wikipedia, you can remove it immediately. Please cite "WP:BLP" in your edit summary to help explain your reasons. Aside from that, though, Twitter feeds and PR websites are quite poor sources. We care much more about what independent sources have to say about a subject than what his publicist has to say. Please also review our policy on conflict of interest. VQuakr (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!

Yes, I have checked the page for accuracy but not included anything of opinion. We have not used our website or Twitter as a source on either of the pages.

I'm finding that there is a person who is adding their name to the page as being a creator of the group decades ago. This isn't factual and can't be verified, but each time its been deleted, he immediately adds it again.

The Blackstreet page has been locked once. Is it possible to create a more permanent solution to the problem?

TruthContributor (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello VQuakr/Archives, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on my edits on Space Heaters

I just read your comment regarding my addition of Natural Stone Heaters in the Space Heater section. Please could you show me some credible sources on the Internet that explain Natural Stone Heaters as a concept for a layperson to understand, that I can quote? The concept itself is as old as the Romans (they were the first ones to heat their dwellings using radiant heat, and in fact were the inspiration behind the concept as it took shape in Europe in late 19th century), but unfortunately they didn't have the internet and Wikipedia to leave a 'quotable, credible' source at the time. Kindly also tell me any other place on the internet where this concept is clearly explained for a layperson to understand. I have no interest in "hawking" or "selling" any one or other commercial brand of natural stone heaters (I haven't even mentioned a commercial brand or manufacturer in my contribution, so I am at a loss to understand why you are so opposed to the very mention of natural stone heaters as a concept on Wikipedia), but I would like to make sure that this concept is there for people to refer to and understand about Natural Stone Heaters as a viable heating source, with distinct advantages. If you and your collaborators, some of who appear to claim the sole copyright and ownership of the knowledge of all of mankind, have such an objection to me making a contribution on Wikipedia (sorry, but do I have to buy shares of Wikipedia or pay a 'convenience fee' of any kind to make a contribution to Wikipedia? Or is this 'public' knowledge-source very much a one way street?) why don't you write up a page on Natural Stone Heaters, explaining the concept? But before any one attempts to copy paste my contribution as their own (which has been so aggressively and repeatedly deleted), please ask for my permission to do so.Thanks. Ans1900 (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I do now know whether there are any reliable sources discussing "natural stone heaters." In any case, the burden is on you to provide such a source when introducing information into an article. Also, since there is disagreement about whether the topic is important enough to merit mention in some of the articles you have edited please use the talk pages to reach agreement before attempting to restore the edits - this is, after all, a group effort. I think a dedicated article about radiant wall panel heating would make more sense; Wall heating seems like a good location.

Any contributions you make to Wikipedia are released under a Creative Commons license when you hit the "save" button. As a result, no one needs to ask your permission to reuse or adapt your work, but they are required to provide attribution to you as the author and share their derivative work under a similarly permissive license. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Backlog drive

Hello VQuakr,

WikiProject Orphanage is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive to de-orphan articles which have orphan tags!
The goal is to eliminate the backlog of orphan articles. There are currently 53226 articles which have orphan tags. The drive is running from April 12, 2014 to May 12, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all editors participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. To add your name in the participants list click here.
So start de-orphaning articles! Click here to see the list of articles need de-orphaning.
Visit Suggestions for how to de-orphan an article to know more!

Thanks. _{Opt-out Instructions} by Jim Cartar on behalf of WikiProject Orphanage through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside

I'm afraid you're not giving LCcritic enough credit. IMO, he understood the subtext perfectly well, and went there irregardless. He's as pure an SPA as you can get, and he won't stop until he's stopped. If you believe he can be reasoned with, I invite you check his edit history. You'll need to check his entire history, because any less will simply continue the pattern: Lure in someone with some AGF to share, drain them until they go away, shop for new prey. He amassed considerable expertise doing this outside of Wikipedia, and he has no reason to do anything different here. Took me far too long to realize it, and still have trouble believing just how completely inert to reasoning this one is. Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with their edit history and agree that they are a pure SPA. VQuakr (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD changes

So, what now? There have been discussion at the talk page for nearly a week now, all the participants there have collaborated to made the changes so far, and we had arrived to a stable version. Several voices there have also stated how it's inadequate and against BRD to revert to a previous version merely because of "lack of consensus"; so, can you voice what are your problems with this version so that we can work towards the consensus you seek to achieve? (Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" may be an essay, but avoiding edit warring, explaining the reasons for your edits and engaging in discussion when you disagree with some changes are policy). Diego (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I replied on the essay talk page. The actual policy says the default is the stable version, so you shouldn't be surprised when you get pushback from citing an essay that implies the opposite (particularly when the justification in your edit summary cited a quite dubious [I don't see it] consensus). April 15 was my first revert on that article in a very long time, so bringing up edit warring is probably a wee bit premature. VQuakr (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Wineries in Florida

Just to let you know, an article you previously prodded, List of Wineries in Florida, was contested and I have restored the article. GB fan 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Wow, three years deleted! VQuakr (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—April 2014

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on performance improvements, image settings, and preparation for a simplified citation template tool in its own menu.

• In an oft-requested improvement, VisualEditor now displays red links (links to non-existent pages) in the proper color. Links to sister projects and external URLs are still the same blue as local links.
• You can now open templates by double-clicking them or by selecting them and pressing  Return.  This also works for references, images, galleries, mathematical equations, and other "nodes".
• VisualEditor has been disabled for pages that were created as translations of other pages using the Translate extension (common at Meta and MediaWiki.org). If a page has been marked for translation, you will see a warning if you try to edit it using VisualEditor.
• When you try to edit protected pages with VisualEditor, the full protection notice and most recent log entry are displayed. Blocked users see the standard message for blocked users.
• The developers fixed a bug that caused links on sub-pages to point to the wrong location.
• The size-changing controls in the advanced settings section of the media or image dialog were simplified further. VisualEditor's media dialog supports more image display styles, like borderless images.
• If there is not enough space on your screen to display all of the tabs (for instance, if your browser window is too narrow), the second edit tab will now fold into the drop-down menu (where the "Move" item is currently housed). On the English Wikipedia, this moves the "Edit beta" tab into the menu; on most projects, it moves the "Edit source" tab. This is only enabled in the default Vector skin, not for Monobook users. See this image for an example showing the "Edit source" and "View history" tabs after they moved into the drop-down menu.
• After community requests, VisualEditor has been deployed as an opt-in feature at Meta and on the French Wikinews.

The drop-down menu is on the right, next to the search box.

Looking ahead:  A new, locally controlled menu of citation templates will put citations immediately in front of users. You will soon be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) is being developed. In-line language setting (dir="rtl") will be offered as a Beta Feature soon. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Monday, 19 May 2014 at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this on your own page, subscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor#Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Per your request, I've deleted the page and left behind only a single-revision redirect, so a move is now technically possible. (This also applies to the corresponding talk page.) —David Levy 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

For the kind warnings, I mean. I'll defer myself to strictly tagging articles for some time (unless they're blatant violations) and such. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please advise me!

I'm not enough but modified to do my best. But,it warned again. In fact, I don't know how that must be changed.

Please detailed advise me! Finally, I will try one more time. Billy choi (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page and at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Help for a new editor. VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't Understand

Please help me understand, What makes my revisions inappropriate?? and not the others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacks11 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—May 2014

Did you know?

The cite menu offers quick access to up to five citation templates.  If your wiki has enabled the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, press "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" and select the appropriate template from the menu.

Existing citations that use these templates can be edited either using the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" tool or by selecting the reference and choosing the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu.

Read the user guide for more information.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has mostly worked on the new citation tool, improving performance, reducing technical debt, and other infrastructure needs.

The biggest change in the last few weeks is the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". The new citation menu offers a locally configurable list of citation templates on the main toolbar. It adds or opens references using the simplified template dialog that was deployed last month. This tool is in addition to the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" item in the "Insert" menu, and it is not displayed unless it has been configured for that wiki. To enable this tool on your wiki, see the instructions at VisualEditor/Citation tool.

Eventually, the VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for these citations. When this long-awaited feature is created, you could add an ISBN, URL, DOI or other identifier to the citation tool, and VisualEditor would automatically fill in as much information for that source as possible. The concept drawings can be seen at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog, and your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted.

• There is a new Beta Feature for setting content language and direction.  This allows editors who have opted in to use the "Language" tool in the "Insert" menu to add HTML span tags that label text with the language and as being left-to-right (LTR) or right-to-left (RTL), like this:  <span lang="en" dir="ltr">English</span>. This tool is most useful for pages whose text combines multiple languages with different directions, common on Right-to-Left wikis.
• The tool for editing mathematics formulae in VisualEditor has been slightly updated and is now available to all users, as the "⧼math-visualeditor-mwmathinspector-title⧽" item in the "Insert" menu. It uses LaTeX like in the wikitext editor.
• The layout of template dialogs has been changed, putting the label above the field.  Parameters are now called "fields", to avoid a technical term that many editors are unfamiliar with.
• TemplateData has been expanded:  You can now add "suggested" parameters in TemplateData, and VisualEditor will display them in the template dialogs like required ones.  "Suggested" is recommended for parameters that are commonly used, but not actually required to make the template work.  There is also a new type for TemplateData parameters: wiki-file-name, for file names.  The template tool can now tell you if a parameter is marked as being obsolete.
• Some templates that previously displayed strangely due to absolute CSS positioning hacks should now display correctly.
• Several messages have changed: The notices shown when you save a page have been merged into those used in the wikitext editor, for consistency.  The message shown when you "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cancel⧽" out of an edit is clearer. The beta dialog notice, which is shown the first time you open VisualEditor, will be hidden for logged-in users via a user preference rather than a cookie.  As a result of this change, the beta notice will show up one last time for all logged-in users on their next VisualEditor use after Thursday's upgrade.
• Adding a category that is a redirect to another category prompts you to add the target category instead of the redirect.
• In the "Images and media" dialog, it is no longer possible to set a redundant border for thumbnail and framed images.
• There is a new Template Documentation Editor for TemplateData.  You can test it by editing a documentation subpage (not a template page) at Mediawiki.org: edit mw:Template:Sandbox/doc, and then click "Manage template documentation" above the wikitext edit box.  If your community would like to use this TemplateData editor at your project, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.
• There have been multiple small changes to the appearance:  External links are shown in the same light blue color as in MediaWiki.  This is a lighter shade of blue than the internal links.  The styling of the "Style text" (character formatting) drop-down menu has been synchronized with the recent font changes to the Vector skin.  VisualEditor dialogs, such as the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽" dialog, now use a "loading" animation of moving lines, rather than animated GIF images.  Other changes were made to the appearance upon opening a page in VisualEditor which should make the transition between reading and editing be smoother.
• The developers merged in many minor fixes and improvements to MediaWiki interface integration (e.g., edit notices), and made VisualEditor handle Education Program pages better.
• At the request of the community, VisualEditor has been deployed to Commons as an opt-in. It is currently available by default for 161 Wikipedia language editions and by opt-in through Beta Features at all others, as well as on several non-Wikipedia sites.

Looking ahead:  The toolbar from the PageTriage extension will no longer be visible inside VisualEditor. More buttons and icons will be accessible from the keyboard.  The "Keyboard shortcuts" link will be moved out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Support for upright image sizes (preferred for accessibility) and inline images is being developed. You will be able to see the Table of Contents while editing. Looking further out, the developers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments. VisualEditor will be available to all users on mobile devices and tablet computers. It will be possible to upload images to Commons from inside VisualEditor.

If you have questions or suggestions for future improvements, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Thursday, 19 June 2014 at 10:00 UTC. If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at meta:VisualEditor/Newsletter for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 22:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're the manager of the NPP noticeboard

Rather than using the new page patrol on me (especially since I've improved my tagging and know what does and what doesn't apply). Check out this user. User:Mr._Guye Recently nominated a new zealand highway under 5+ criteria, one of which blatant vandalism, all of which didn't fit. Also nominated a school under unambigously promotional (and I determined it as not) . I believe that this user grants your attention rather than me, but I am still awaiting a response at NPP for my entry, as well. Tutelary (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Tutelary. An admin posted a warning on Guye's talk page in the last hour, so they appear to already be on someone's radar. As far at the NPP/N goes, it looks like another patroller had a look and agrees with you that your "failure rate" on CSD's isn't high enough to warrant action. What is concerning for me is that after repeated warnings, you still are doing stuff like this - that's a terrible CSD nom. A7 explicitly can never be applied to species; and with the picture, infobox, and three word description there is no guessing what the subject of the article is. And that's after I already pointed this out to you on your talk page, which makes it look like you are not willing and/or able to learn from your mistakes. Just remember that with the exception of BLP violations and maybe copyright issues, WP:BITE is more important than getting something questionable deleted as soon as possible, ok? VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I make mistakes. I'll never stop making mistakes, as I'm human. However, I will try my utmost to at least second guess myself and to consider and research the article before tagging it for a deletion, and learn from my mistakes. (Unless it's one of the more incredibly blatant criteria) Experience is a harsh teacher. First comes the test, second comes the lesson. I'll take what you've said into account and make sure to read the small, possibly transparent text on the infoboxes, as well as research the article titles to ensure that it is tagged correctly. Tutelary (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks a lot like wp:wikistalking

this seems a lot like you are wp:wikistalking me, you have not shown an interest in WWII or armored vehicle topic and all of a sudden you are reverting me? Please stop wp:harassing me. CombatWombat42 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually have a number of edits to history and military-related articles. Please also see the section you linked: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by CombatWombat42

(comment removed by author)

There is extensive discussion in the talk page, CombatWombat42. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So, to recap:

• You restored content that was the subject of an edit war and under extensive discussion on the article talk page.
• I reverted to the status quo, using a descriptive edit summary, and left you a reminder not to edit war.
• You replied on your talk page that my template was "rediculous", and politely requested that I refrain from posting to your talk page.
• You also left me a message, noting that you thought your edit was poorly "intriprited", with an essay linked as the subject line. The text of that note was, One revert cannot in any way be intriprited as an edit war. Especially with no discussion on the talk page.
• I replied, and changed the section header to a more easily recognizable title (as described at WP:TPO, which you should read).
• You disliked that the section header on my talk page now contained the phrase "edit warring", so you decided to edit war in order to change it back. You eventually removed your post altogether whilst incorrectly citing WP:SIGFORGE
• You also started a new section at Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya, apparently still having not read, or indeed noticed, the extensive discussion immediately above.
• When an editor who shares your viewpoint helpfully merged your edit to the section above (as described at WP:TPO, which you should read), you removed another editor's comment while simultaneously requesting that they not edit yours.
• So, in summary yes the template was warranted. Please stop edit warring and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Rather than whining and repeatedly citing WP:DTR, you could modify your behavior, read WP:TTR (another essay, and equally nonbinding), and while you are at it maybe review a few other more important documents that you seem to have forgotten. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Message from TVleck1971

I am new to Wikipedia. How do I talk to you. I only have one account, and just opened it today. Im concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVleck1971 (talk • contribs)

Greetings, TVleck1971, and welcome! User talk pages such as this one are the correct places to talk to other users, so you are in the correct place. Please review our policy on edit warring; your first article-space edit was to continue an edit war by another editor. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Editor, Thank you for the warm welcome. I'm a MIT scientist, researcher and member of the community for over 35 years. I've wanted to contribute to the email article. This is what I posted after seeing a posting by a previous writer. See below. There is a distinction between "email" and the generic term "electronic mail", which predates "email". This distinction is important to the history of email, which I believe the citations, which I was in the midst of posting, will show have been monopolized by, as Chomsky says, vested interests.

I would like to load up the primary citations. Kindly advise me, as although, I am a programmer, the Wiki editing model is very new to me. So I apologize for not understanding the dynamics.

Thank you in advance. TV.

(long text of diff here)VQuakr (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TVleck1971 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@TVleck1971: any information that is likely to be challenged should be provided with an (ideally secondary) source. This becomes not optional for quotes - every quote needs an inline citation immediately afterwards to provide credit. Footnotes are generated by wrapping the citation in <ref>...</ref>; in your toolbar above the editing window there is a "cite" menu to help fill in common fields or you can try our WYSIWYG editor.

More importantly though, you need to work with other editors to confirm whether there is consensus that this information should be included. When you saw that this edit had already been reverted in the article history, the correct thing to do is to discuss at the article talk page rather than attempting to "force" it back in. VQuakr (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear VQuakr, Thank you for your kind feedback. I've done quiet a number of formal research papers in peer-reviewed journals and there is a particular style for quotes and footnotes and reference. On Wikipedia, what I'm understanding now is that: (1) For quotes, immediately after the quote I click on the cite button and then fill in? If this is the case, please let me know for the quote I wanted to reference if this (see below is right?):

Noam Chomsky, referring to the linguistic fact the term “email” did not exist before 1978, and given the admission by David Crocker of the lack of intent by ARPANET team to create the electronic version of the inter-organizational mail system, as late as December 1977, months before the creation of email at UMDNJ, concluded: “Given the term email was not used prior to 1978, and there was no intention to emulate ‘…a full-scale, inter-organizational mail system,” as late as December 1977, there is no controversy here, except the one created by industry insiders, who have a vested interest.”<ref>...</ref>

In the above case what do I put in ... format wise. Or, like you are saying where do I get the WYSIWYG editor.

(2) Sorry about the forcing,I just saw the Undo button and no reason, so I just thought it was someone being disrespectful and in the remarks is where the discussion took place. I cannot see the Edit or Talk page for the Email article. Please advise how I navigate there.

Thank you for all your support. I learn fast. I appreciate your help. I do want to get the important aspects of email versus "electronic mail" into the article.

Have a great weekend, TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVleck1971 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Vquakr, I just posted a topic to resolve the issue on the email talk page. Is this okay, proper way to start a way to resolve the matter. Please advise. -TV TVleck1971 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Per your advice, I've updated the sockpuppet page. Is this matter now closed? Can we get back to the email article on the Talk page? Thank you TVleck1971 (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement

Thanks for linking to that over at the Teahouse that's one of the more amusing thing's I've seen this week. Whispering 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help. Linking for my own reference. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

9/11 and CJK's edits

Appreciated for kicking in. As you can see I've tried to explain the editor's misinterpretation/non-understanding of synth and let it go/gave up after their last comment on talk and (slightly adjusted) re-edit at the article today. Stay on it b/c I most likely won't [I'm, soooo tired of people not getting even such clear and simple policies and I won't editwar over it]. Cheers,TMCk (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Add on: Although I'll keep an eye on it ;) TMCk (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Note from Seanboileau

ThanksSeanpboileau (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards. VQuakr (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I did want to mention, that I appreciate your feedback and your way of addressing. Take a minute when you have the time and view my ref's and compare to my edit. Nothing bias nor inflated or flattering. thanks again, SeanSeanpboileau (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Seanpboileau: it is difficult to write neutrally about topics we are close to, and your lengthy section is unacceptable for a number of reasons. Feel free to solicit broader feedback on the talk page, but please cease edit warring immediately. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I will cease. I understand your point. Now, I charge you with doing some research from a non bias point of view since that seams to be the issue. Your edit can contain more facts than a one line. Read the divide. If you can not get a copy, I will be more than happy to provide one for you.Seanpboileau (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Coolie

What has to be done? User won't talk, nor he/she wants to attribute their knowledge with reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk) 07:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Automatic archiving was set up for Talk:Yank Barry and kicks in for month-old posts (no matter when the thread was started). Am wondering why you used OneClick Archiver & archived posts from a few days ago since those posts could be part of an ongoing discussion. Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I will reply on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Propelling nozzle" layout

Since I am largely responsible for the current layout I feel I ought to have a go at improving it. The guidelines seem a bit daunting as a guide. Can you recommend another article as a good guide instead? Thank you.Pieter1963 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pieter1963: you could use any featured article as a guide for updating Propelling nozzle and probably do fine. Rolls-Royce Merlin might be a good choice. I do suggesting using the relevant style guide if you have specific questions not addressed in that article, though. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm working in my sandbox but text I have just added only appears in the edit box, not the saved page. specifically, some of 1.10, all of 1.11, 1.12, 1.13. Are you able to give the reason? Thank youPieter1963 (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed <ref> tag. Should be fixed now. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Review

Hello! I am new to wikipedia and have been attempting to update the article Skyhook (structure). Another editor, BatteryIncluded, a biologist, (BI) insists that skyhooks and space tethers cannot be built with existing materials and sites articles that refer to space elevators (which cannot be built with existing materials). I have attempted to educate and have supplied numerous references but to no effect other then BI deletes the references and reverts the article back to an earlier version that is grossly incorrect. I have left many messages on the Talk page for that article but have gotten no response there. Another editor, Huntster, also non-technical, occasionally gets involved on the side of BI. Again no discussion of substance, just reverts and deletes. I am writing you because your bio says you are a mechanical engineer and in the hope you would review the article and maybe bring a little sanity to the situation. Please post any comments or suggestion you might have on the Skyhook (structure) Talk page. I will update the article one more time for you but who knows how long it will stay there. Thank you for your time. 72.199.145.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like something I want to mess with at this time. Communication on the talk page seems to have degraded to name calling, and you attempting to poison the well by "accusing" another editor of being a biologist is double inappropriate. I suggest posting at the dispute resolution noticeboard if you have not already done so. If you do post there, please be sure to focus on the sources and their reliability, not the motivations or technical prowess of other editors (the latter will get you nowhere). VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't accuse the other editor of being a biologist. BI's Talk page states he/she is a biologist. The reference to BI's background was simply an attempt to compare sources and their respective reliability. In any case, thank you for your time, I will post on the WP:DRN. 72.199.145.35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor global newsletter—June 2014

Did you know?

The character formatting menu, or "Style text" menu lets you set bold, italic, and other text styles. "Clear formatting" removes all text styles and removes links to other pages.

Do you think that clear formatting should remove links? Are there changes you would like to see for this menu? Share your opinion at MediaWiki.org.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

The VisualEditor team is mostly working to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

• They have moved the "Keyboard shortcuts" link out of the "Page options" menu, into the "Help" menu. Within dialog boxes, buttons are now more accessible (via the Tab key) from the keyboard.
• You can now see the target of the link when you click on it, without having to open the inspector.
• The team also expanded TemplateData: You can now add a parameter type  "date" for dates and times in the ISO 8601 format, and  "boolean" for values which are true or false. Also, templates that redirect to other templates (like {{citeweb}} → {{cite web}}) now get the TemplateData of their target (bug 50964). You can test TemplateData by editing mw:Template:Sandbox/doc.
• Category: and File: pages now display their contents correctly after saving an edit (bug 65349, bug 64239)
• They have also improved reference editing: You should no longer be able to add empty citations with VisualEditor (bug 64715), as with references. When you edit a reference, you can now empty it and click the "use an existing reference" button to replace it with another reference instead. 
• It is now possible to edit inline images with VisualEditor. Remember that inline images cannot display captions, so existing captions get removed. Many other bugs related to images were also fixed.
• You can now add and edit {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and __DISAMBIG__ in the "Page options" menu, rounding out the full set of page options currently planned.
• The tool to insert special characters is now wider and simpler.

Looking ahead

The VisualEditor team has posted a draft of their goals for the next fiscal year. You can read them and suggest changes on MediaWiki.org.

The team posts details about planned work on VisualEditor's roadmap. You will soon be able to drag-and-drop text as well as images. If you drag an image to a new place, it won't let you place it in the middle of a paragraph. All dialog boxes and windows will be simplified based on user testing and feedback. The VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for citations. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments and adding rows and columns to tables.

Supporting your wiki

Please read VisualEditor/Citation tool for information on configuring the new citation template menu, labeled "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽". This menu will not appear unless it has been configured on your wiki.

If you speak a language other than English, we need your help with translating the user guide. The guide is out of date or incomplete for many languages, and what's on your wiki may not be the most recent translation. Please contact me if you need help getting started with translation work on MediaWiki.org.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 21:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas and Pacific Islands) or on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 9:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East, Asia).

To change your subscription to this newsletter, please see the subscription pages on Meta or the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Kate Lambert BLP sources

On April 2nd, you added a BLP sources tag to the Kate Lambert page. At that time there were only 12 references. There are now twice that many. Can the tag be removed yet? Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jonnybgoode44: the issue is quality, not quantity. I went through and purged some of the really bad ones, but most of the rest are also borderline. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Message from Dr Gonzo5269

Hello. You posted on my page. I have not reverted anything. All I have done is add factual, sourced information to the Yank Barry page and it is continually deleted. I have not had this problem on any other page. Again, I have not deleted or reverted anything. I do NOT want to be in any edit wars. Again, it is my information that continues to be deleted. Please check the information I am adding, it is not fluff and it is not propaganda, it is factual, sourced information and it continues to be deleted. Please help me. Thank you!--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I will reply on your talk page; we can keep the conversation there for simplicity if that is ok with you. VQuakr (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My question that no one seems to be answering is why is the reverter not guilty of edit warring? Why am I the only one accused of edit warring? I am trying to add factual, positive information to improve an encyclopedia page as I have done on several other pages, with no issues, and plan to do on several more in the future. It is the negativity that has brought me back to this page again and again. I have had zero issues on any other page. I have NEVER contributed anything false, fluff, propaganda, or untrue. Always sourced and cited fact. Again, I ask, if you reverted my contribution why are you or Ubikwit not guilty of edit warring? I do not follow how I am the only guilty party here. Also, I don't know how familiar you are with the situation, but I have been on Wikipedia for about 10 days and my username has found it's way to admin pages three times. I do not believe I have been given a good faith benefit of the doubt. I implore you to check every addition I've made and show me where I've stated anything that is untrue. I'm not talking about getting upset about my username being drug through the mud and having my content reverted. I apologized for that as it is not helpful at all. What I'm saying is what I have to offer is positive and fact. I bring no propaganda to any page and zero fluff. Please if you could answer the edit warring question I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs), and welcome! I understand what you are saying, but the thing is no one accused you of introducing propaganda or fluff into the article with your edit. The reason given in the edit summary for challenging it was that it appeared undue. This is an editorial assessment, not an accusation of bad faith. To address your question about edit warring, as noted in the policy I directed you to in my post on your talk page: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. The subsequent removal of your bold edit constituted evidence of this opposition, and was an invitation for you to join (in this case continue since there is an open RfC on the subject already) the discussion on the talk page. By instead attempting to "force" the same edit on to the page by re-inserting it, you commenced edit warring. Please understand that you are editing a contentious page with many collaborators; as a community project the content to be included is subject to consensus. Editing a page like this is challenging even for experienced editors, and since you are new you are facing an even steeper learning curve. Feel free to contact me again if you have any questions, or if you want to talk to someone uninvolved you could post questions at the teahouse. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I, seriously, do thank you for your help. So as I asked on another thread, if I delete the extortion part, and another editor attempts to "force" the same edit on the page by re-inserting it, then that editor will have commenced edit warring, and I have done nothing wrong, correct? As I stated on the other thread, I want to make sure I have the rules and policies right, and they don't change depending on which editor is doing which action. What I am saying is I can't be guilty of edit warring in both scenarios because, apparently the reverter to my contribution is not guilty. I know that may be hard to understand, but as you said this page is challenging, unneededly so I might add, and if you need me to clarify my question please ask. Even though we seem to disagree on the Yank Barry page, I do appreciate your help and clarification. Also as I stated in another thread, the sentence that my content has been reverted back to, twice, is grammatically incorrect. If editors are going to revert my positive, factual content the least they could do is get their original addition grammatically correct, don't you think? As I said I make mistakes sometimes too, and need help being shown the ropes around here, that is what I believe the talk page should be for, not seeing if Yank Barry is going to win a popularity contest, as it is quite clear, for reasons I simply do not understand, he is not. Thanks again.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Context matters. Are you talking about deleting something that has been the subject of extensive discussion? Are you being reverted by more than one editor? Those would be examples of indications that you are editing against consensus. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I also do not understand how an editor can accuse me of edit warring and that is not a personal attack and misconduct, but if I accuse the reverter of edit warring that is interpreted as a personal attack and misconduct. As I have said several times on several threads, I am not comfortable with the blatant double standard that seems to be alive and well at the Yank Barry page. All I am campaigning for is equality. Plain and simple. I want no special treatment and I want no incorrect information on the Barry page. Just equality. I'll give you an example, I've seen it argued that secondary sources from a newspaper article is absolutely fine when it comes to Yank Barry's extortion situation. I have then seen using secondary sources from an article picked apart and said to be no good when it backs up something positive about Yank Barry. I'm not making a case here to include or exclude anything, I'm giving you an observation from a fresh set of eyes looking at this article and talk page. I would ask you to take a look at this statement from editor, Ubikwit, "The comparison of the subject of this article to Malala Yousafzai with respect to the already thoroughly discussed above Nobel nomination issue is somewhat shocking." I didn't compare the two subjects, I pointed out the Nobel Peace Prize nomination for 2014 was mentioned on her page, and it still is, and that I do not find it acceptable for it to be okay on her page but not okay on the Yank Barry page. That is a clear case of hypocrisy and Ubikwit's quote seems to say he supports it on Malala's page because he has a higher level of respect for her than he does Yank Barry. To me, that is not acceptable on an encyclopedia page and it is not a neutral viewpoint. Since you we do not share the same point of view it is really helpful to have your feedback. Thanks again.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Observation that someone is engaging in edit warring is not an accusation of bad faith or a personal attack. Who said it was either? Linking to a WP:DIFF would be helpful, since it is difficult to track all the disparate conversations. Secondary sources are the foundation of Wikipedia, so just identifying a source as "secondary" with no qualifying information or context does not give me enough information to have on opinion about your specific situation. You may be confusing "secondary" with "reliable", which is assessed editorially, is subject to consensus, and requires context. Ubikwit could have phrased their response differently, but "look at this other article" arguments are generally met with a poor response because they are so weak. We base our articles on consensus and content policy, not other articles, and there is clear consensus not to include the Nobel nom on the Barry page. As a result, bringing up another biography just comes across as an inability to move on. I am not sure how different our points of view really are, though. VQuakr (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I like you. My purpose is not to be disruptive. I've stated again and again that my purpose is to better the article, as is my purpose on every article I contribute to. I sincerely do apologize for whatever transpired on this article prior to my arrival, but that has nothing to do with me. I see an article in bad shape and I've done the research and I want to improve it. Nothing is currently being done to improve it. From a new account's perspective, it seems to me this page is suffering from the same issue the United States government suffers from. You have two warring sides, neither of which will give an inch, and so nothing gets accomplished. There is a huge double standard on the Yank Barry talk page. Things that are of no issue on other pages are not allowed inclusion on the YB page. That is a fact. I've researched several different topics and on other pages the information is there. On this page almost nothing is allowed on there. I have no idea what anyone's agenda is. I have no idea who is for Yank Barry and who is against him. I see a couple editors who seem to be neutral and that is great and that is where I want to be. I several editors that are ALWAYS against Yank Barry, but for some reason they are not vilified in the same matter as the positive editors. I came to this page to do good, quality, factual, non-fluff work. To make contributions in a positive manner to better the page. In two weeks time, I've had my name turned over to admin 3 times, I've been called names, I've been accused of edit warring, I've had my efforts reverted, I've had my time wasted, and regardless of the situation I am always made out to be the bad guy. How can an editor with the goal of contributing in a factual, positive manner to improve a Wikipedia page be such a villain? It seems to me every editor should have that mind set and things should be much easier. I simply do not understand editors continuously opposing the inclusion of facts. I 100% agree opposing fluff or campaigns or untrue statements. I'm appalled at what I see editors opposed to. Why aren't these same editors on all these other pages campaigning to have the facts taken off? If you do not believe me or would like me to provide you with examples I'm happy to. Plain and simple, what is 100% okay on a zillion other pages is 100% not okay on the Yank Barry page. I do not have a clue as to why this is, but it is not right. It is not academically acceptable on an encyclopedia page. It needs to be the same rules regardless of an editor's personal opinion of the subject matter.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I thought the 1995 stat was in the article cited. I did not mean to make that mistake. I didn't make the year up. I can find it again. Evander Holyfield and many other celebrities have a lot to do with Yank Barry's charity and how they accomplish their goals. I see nothing wrong with mentioning this. My problem with this article is that editors are against additions that are perfectly fine on any other page. I'm not for fluff but the standards on this page are not the same as other pages. Again, I still believe the rules should be the same regardless of the topic or an editor's personal opinion of the subject matter.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming to you, first, for help for several reasons. Number one, because you don't seem to share my viewpoints (I assume you probably don't like me, but that is irrelevant). Number two, because you seem to be willing to have a conversation about things. I do not know what your goals are for the Yank Barry page and I won't speculate. The first problem I have is I don't know how to contact admin or if that even helps anything. I don't want to get anyone blocked, or anything like that, but I'm at my wits end. It bothers me greatly that this one particular page plays by a different set of rules than every other page. It bothers me that there seems to be editors who are participating in the Yank Barry topic solely for negative reasons. I do not mean deleting information that is not factual, I mean reverting information that is allowed on every other Wikipedia page, and I'm happy to provide examples and proof. I know you revert a lot, and like I said I will not speculate as to why, but I'm coming to you to ask for help. Will you help me make this page better? I only want to do things the right way, with facts, and cite and source correctly. I only want to be able to add material that is perfectly fine on ALL Wikipedia pages. I don't think the Yank Barry page should get any special favors, but I don't think there should be such an obvious double standard. Again, I come to you first because your viewpoint seems to align more with Ubikwit, than my own, but you seem to be someone who will work with other editors to improve a given Wikipedia article. If you want nothing to do with me, all I ask is you let me know how to bring, what I see as a problem, to the administration. I thank you for your time.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: I will reply in more detail to you later (maybe 48 hours, just heading out the door), but wanted to let you know I got the message. I like you fine; I have a terse style that should not be confused with dislike. Comparison with other articles is fallacious because the circumstances are different; if you think policies or guidelines are being violated you should identify the specific section of policy instead. Remember that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and that slow progress is not the same as stonewalling. VQuakr (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, obviously no rush. Nothing can be done on the page anyway. I just want help improving the article. I know what you're saying about comparison with other articles, but to some degree all have the same policies. Correct? Yes, I feel that material that is perfectly fine on other pages is not allowed on the Yank Barry page. Yes, I believe some editors are their solely for malicious purposes. Believe me when I showed up here I was green and I assumed good faith. A month later, with what has transpired it is obvious Yank Barry has done something to upset some editors. As I've said I'm new to the topic and, to me, he seems to be doing good work. I know if I had his money I would not be doing the work he is, so I do find that admirable. However, I have never campaigned against anything negative being remove or said anything was undue. My goal on all the Wikipedia pages I contribute to is to tell an accurate, factual story. That's all I want to do on the Yank Barry article. I would love your help. Again, I ask that you don't misinterpret my intentions or my goals. I am not pro Yank Barry, I'm pro Wikipedia. I can't, in good faith, claim that one, Rich said it, but I really like it and feel it describes me well. Hopefully, you too. Talk to you further on up the road,--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: thanks for your patience. I have been following the conversations on the talk page over the last couple of days, but haven't had time to contribute. First off, stuff like this needs to stop. It is counterproductive and disruptive, and you already have been warned about it. Apologies in advance for the duplicate notice, but after this I will post a notice to you talk page, effectively formalizing the warning that if you are unable to refrain from commenting on editors rather than content on article talk pages, you will eventually face community sanctions to prevent the disruption.

Moving on. As I have said before, observing that other stuff exists on another page is not a good rationale for keeping it. This is a volunteer project and other pages are not perfect, so in content disputes we go back to our policies and our manual of style. The Yank Barry page gets more attention because of its long history of fluffy edits. The 1995 date was still not supported by a source so I took it back out. "Contacting an admin" is not the right way to go, because they are not going to champion one side or the other of a content dispute. Your first step should be to use the talk page; try that for a few days without any personal attacks and see if you get better results. If there is no progress at all, there are a number of steps available as listed at WP:DR. Requests for comment are good for specific questions; WP:DRN is good for more general informal mediation. Several noticeboards are available for attracting other editors as well. Note that neither of these are particularly fast - for example, RfCs are typically open for 30 days. So you may be making the "zero progress" assessment to hastily. I will close with a final plea to please quit with the conjecture about other editors' motivations in article talk space, full stop. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI-WP:DR was what I was going off of when I came to you in the first place. I have talked with another experienced editor, who is definitely coming from a neutral point of view, and I'm just going to take the high road. It's against my nature and I don't think it is right, but I have no interest in carrying on with this guy. It is, simply, not what I signed up for. I still believe what I believe, but I give up. I just want to improve the article. I'll assume everyone else does too and heed your advice. I don't feel good about it, but I'm heeding your advice. I want no more issues with that guy.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

As long as you posted the exact same thing to Ubikwit's page then I have no problem with anything you said. I happen to be a person too and I don't like being accused of things and I don't like being called names and I don't like the fact I wasn't given an assumption of good faith. So, as long as you are being fair, I have no problem with what you are saying. I hope you have had a talk with everyone who has called me some sort of puppet or said my efforts are disruptive or just flat out has not shown good faith. So long as you are applying this talk fairly, I have no problem with it at all and will try some of the things you mentioned, but if you are singling me out I see no difference than the three times my name was brought up on the admin page as a puppet. I don't suppose you would like it if I went to the admin board and said VQuakr is sock puppet for negative accounts, would you? I'm a human being and I don't like it either. People should treat others the way they want to be treated and so far I have acted the way I've been treated. I was not welcomed with open arms to a new community. I had a smile on my face when I signed up for this and within two days I was called a puppet. Yes, that makes me angry and it doesn't assume good faith, so as long as you got on those people as well, I have no problem with anything you've said.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you this question because you're viewpoint "seems" (I have no idea what you really think) to align more with Ubikwit. Can you honestly read the things he has posted on the Yank Barry talk page and say he is coming from a neutral point of view? That is where I have a problem. I don't believe opinions should be in an encyclopedia. If you are writing an Op-Ed, then sure, bash the heck out of Yank Barry if you want, but this is an encyclopedia. It is my opinion that the facts should be told, in as much detail as possible, and the reader should form their own opinions. I came to you for help about going to admin, Ubikwit has threatened me, I do not feel he is a neutral editor based on his comments, I'm again asking for your help. As I stated above, I assume you have left him a message as well, and maybe that will calm the situation a little. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Even though I feel it's not right, I'm going to take the high road. I'm done with that guy. All I ask is he does not make accusations towards me. Should be fair enough. I'm trying the vinegar and honey approach because I trust you. I hope you're right.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Gonzo5269: can you post a specific example (diff) of a post from Ubikwit from the last five days or so that violates WP:AGF or WP:NPA? To get an admin's attention you can simply use the {{adminhelp}} template on your talk page, but again I do not think you are going to get the sort of response you desire from that. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but I've already let it go. If you read the talk page it's right there. I'm not interested in controversy. I just want to add to articles in a positive, factual way. He's free to say whatever he likes about me, I'm just going to go about my business. Thanks for your input.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Still think I'm crazy about the concerns I have voiced to you? It's pretty clear the subject of the article feels there is a problem. There is absolutely no arguing that there is a lack of good faith problem, there is a WP:NPOV problem, and there is a huge double standard problem. I'm going to intently watch how this plays out, but I'm sticking with my vinegar and honey approach on the talk page and will still only contribute FACTS to the article. Have a nice day.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Fake news?? To what are you referring? My point was, even if what you said were true, it is also true that there is a WP:NPOV issue on the negative side. A reader should be given the full story and allowed to make up their own mind, not simply told there is a PR firm printing fake news. You have never heard me argue to keep anything off the page and I have never reverted anything, because I believe in fairness and an accurate story being told. I have, however, had factual information kept off the page. Anyway, fill me in on this fake news, I don't want to cite it.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The NBC and CNN videos that have been discussed on the talk page come to mind. I mentioned them in my preceding post on the talk page. Asserting a statement is "factual" does not increase the likelihood that it will be included in the article. I never called anyone crazy. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I was making light of an ironic situation. Why are you guys so mad? I'm sick of the way Wikipedia user Ubikwit addresses me and his lack of WP:NPOV. I've come to you for help, apparently you disagree with my assessment of the situation. I have taken the high road. I stopped engaging in pointless back and forth, just as you requested, and I will continue in this manner, regardless of how he speaks to me. I didn't come to Wikipedia for drama and confrontation, I get more than my share of that offline. I'm very sorry I make you so mad, I just don't think improving encyclopedia pages has to be warfare. Why can't we all work together to achieve a common goal, assuming, with good faith, we all have the same goal. Listen, man, it's obvious I upset you, in the same vain as Ubikwit, so I will cease with disturbing you. I would like you to know that I do know the Wikipedia policy on press releases. I'm very sorry for offending you and upsetting you. I, sincerely, do wish this article to get better and I'll NEVER support "fake news" in any encyclopedia article. I am a new user, so obviously a bit naive, and I always hear people speak about the "liberal media" and it's "false narrative", but I, honestly, had no idea that NBC and CNN or even ET, for that matter, were printing fake news. I, certainly, won't be watching Anderson Cooper any longer(this one was a joke, I hope you smiled). Have a good day, sir, and I hope to work with you further on up the road. Please know, it will never be my intent to offend you in such a way again.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that I am mad or offended? I am not seeing where Ubikwit has violated WP:NPOV; I suspect that you may believe that policy says something different than what it actually does. Similarly, you keeping talking about a "double standard;" I thought that had been explained to you as well? Context always matters when evaluating whether a source is reliable. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot all about this. I still believe Ubikwit violated WP:NPOV but no point in beating a dead horse. Just for the record there does seem to be a double standard at the Yank Barry page and I have not been comfortable with one explanation that has been given. The answer is always "context matters" and the answer is "NO" when the answer on other pages is "YES". I am talking about an apples to apples comparison. Of course context matters, my complaint is when the context is the SAME. I have never argued for anything using an apples to oranges comparison. Always apples to apples and always the answer is "NO GO" on the Yank Barry page. For the record, I don't think that is right. The page is protected, we can agree to dislike that. I haven't thought about Ubikwit in two weeks, this was a nice walk down memory lane. Thanks and good night.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent revisions by me (Marc9889)

Dear sir, Thank you for taking a moment to send me a message regarding my contribution. Based on your response, I believe you have been misled. As you know, I included a link that seems to have been reported as an advertisement. This is not the case, as the link was to a not-for-profit website, and is just as legitimate as other links appearing on the page (which, now that I think about it, is actually for profit). The link to the page is relevant, and follows the common sense guidelines set forth in the Wikipedia documentation. Based on the verbiage used by lanmacm, it appears that this decision was based much more on personal dislike than on the established rules and adherence ("rip off" and "lazy rehash" aren't typically used by professionals with an unbiased opinion). Please take a moment to consider that, review at your convenience, and feel free to discuss with me any time. Have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc9889 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Marc9889: whether a link is "for profit" is not a criterion for inclusion or exclusion, as discussed here. The reason I reverted your repeated addition is that it was redundant - there is no editorial reason why multiple links to the video are desirable. VQuakr (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Thanks for your response. My edit was originally revised because it was implied that it was a "conflict of interest". Based on your feedback, it appears that is not the case, so thanks for the clarification.

It is apparent to me now that I could have done a better job at stating my purpose. The link provided was to a website, (not a video), and I'm sure you also noticed that the video has a very large number of page visits, and has even been shown live in a college football game. Without doubt, the content of the video is of huge social significance, which is, after all, the point. The purpose for the website was not only to provide access to the video, but to convey the significance of the phenomenon itself. As for editorial value, the site now appears at the top of page two of Google's search results, which makes is much more relevant and editorially viable than one might initially think. I hope this better explains the reason for editing the page, and please let me know if further participation on my part would be helpful. Regards - Marc9889 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc9889 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisions revered by Kentpalmer (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The page on Meta-systems is wrong, confusing and multiple edits have made it incomprehensible.

@Kentpalmer: feel free to fix it, just do not cite yourself or promote your own work, please. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kate Lambert photos

I do have copywrite permission from her to use the two photos, and she has emailed in the permission to permissions-en@ at least twice now herself. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jonnybgoode44: as noted at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 July 12#File:Vex outfit.jpg and the previous OTRS responses, no adequate permissions have been given via email. I do not have access to the text of her emails, but she might not have formally released the photos under a free license, as is required for their use on Wikipedia. In any case, please stop reposting the same photos until the issue is resolved. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the text of her latest email:

Subject: Giving permission to use MY OWN photos.

Hello

I am the copyright owner of the images on Wikipedia named "Kato with Scissors.jpg" and "Vex outfit.jpg", and I give permission for them to be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

~Kato

This was sent from her personal email address. She sent a subsequent email clarifying when she noticed the names of the images were different than the last time. (I've asked her to cc me in all correspondence with WP so we can get this sorted out.) I fail to see why her photos are not being approved, and neither does she, and she is getting frustrated with WP over it. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference in case the files are deleted again, we are talking about this and this. The first is copyright thisiskato@live.com. It is surprising to hear that Kato is the author of the latter, since she is the subject and it does not look like a selfie (this might be contributing to OTRS's skepticism, but that is pure conjecture on my part). Feel free to take it up with them, but what you should not be doing is repeatedly re-uploading the same images and re-inserting them into articles before the copyright issues are resolved. That is disruptive and constitutes edit warring.

Both also are watermarked with a brand logo on them, so if a non-watermarked version is not available, the mark should be removed or cropped once proper permissions are documented. Sorry to hear the subject is frustrated, though of course WP is under no obligation to host the photos. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes those are the ones. Thanks for your help, I'll endeavor to follow your advice.

Kato says she owns the rights to both photos, as she is the owner of Steampunk Couture and all works under that name, but I'll ask on the second one if the photographer's permission might be needed. I also made her aware that the logo/branding would most likely need to be cropped or edited out, and she said that would be just fine. I can do that once the photos are approved. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow up! VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD on Pseudoscience

You reverted a sourced statement which was discussed and agreed. Your revert was a complete non-reason "not an improvement". Engage in the discussion or revert your edit. Second Quantization (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, quick on the talk page posting, Second Quantization. Switch to decaf, ease up on the imperative tone, and then feel free to take note that I posted to the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Native Appropriations

Hiya -

I might still be a little fuzzy on the notability guidelines here, so could you please take a look over the Native Appropriations article? I've added multiple non-trivial sources to show breadth of coverage, that the website is routinely described as "popular", and that conversations it has started or had a strong role in continuing (esp regarding Urban Outfitters) have had real-world effects. (BTW, apologies for removing your tag while not signed-in: it looks like a stupid attempt at a sneaky move, it's actually because my computer keeps deleting cookies for no reason). Thanks for your guidance on this, Vizjim (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

options

Another option is to continue conversation here. pls reply Gregkaye (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change the archival settings, just suggest what you think is best and see if the consensus agrees. I think you may have an uphill battle, because the settings there are quite "vanilla." VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to the consensus agreement regarding the initial imposition of the settings? Within the context of the full spectrum of flavours available can you qualify the settings vanilla credentials? Gregkaye (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Archival based on thread age (as opposed to total talk page length) is ubiquitous. You can read more about the available configuration options at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. I think the consensus for the current settings was achieved through WP:SILENCE; I see that in 2010 the setting was 21 days, not 10. I would not oppose update back to 21d or the more common 30d. Also note that all except the last 6 archives were created manually, not by the bot - the rate of new archive page generation has gone way down since the bot was added. VQuakr (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That is very much appreciated and respected. Thanks also for the link. I also suspect the consensus for the current settings was partially maintained through a level of CP:SILENCE and I apologise if that is not founded. But the thing that I am most aware of is down to me. I appreciate that I started the earlier thread before I had a clue what I was talking about. I am still willing, no, wanting to hack that back possibly starting from scratch as long as you and Redrose64 would be happy. I could even run text by you first. Gregkaye (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at Afd

Hello VQuakr, I think one of your comment at Afd was not appropriate. Though it is good to redirect boldly but it is not a good idea when Afd is in process. Please see the 3rd point to know why. The nominator turned the article into redirect when the Afd is in process. I have to close (WP:NAC) it as redirect since the nominator already turned it redirect. It might be a WP:SUPERVOTE by my action, since consensus clearly says to delete. So, be careful, it is not good to advice the nominator to turn that article into a redirect when Afd is in process. Nothing else, thanks for your understanding & have a good day. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

My comment was a !vote, not an early closure (which, BTW, still would have been explicitly allowed). My comment to the nominator was a suggestion that the AfD was itself unnecessary, not instructions to close it themselves. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I know, but still as I said. Nominator followed your suggestion and changed it into a redirect. And it is an unlike search term as well. So, WP:SNOW redirect is not a perfect option in this case. Nominator should only do it after withdrawing and not when the Afd is in process. Because during Afd only closing admin does that. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—July and August 2014

The VisualEditor team is currently working mostly to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.

Dialog boxes in VisualEditor have been re-designed to use action words instead of icons. This has increased the number of items that need to be translated. The user guide is also being updated.

The biggest visible change since the last newsletter was to the dialog boxes. The design for each dialog box and window was simplified. The most commonly needed buttons are now at the top. Based on user feedback, the buttons are now labeled with simple words (like "Cancel" or "Done") instead of potentially confusing icons (like "<" or "X"). Many of the buttons to edit links, images, and other items now also show the linked page, image name, or other useful information when you click on them.

• Hidden HTML comments (notes visible to editors, but not to readers) can now be read, edited, inserted, and removed. A small icon (a white exclamation mark on a dot) marks the location of each comments. You can click on the icon to see the comment.
• You can now drag and drop text and templates as well as images. A new placement line makes it much easier to see where you are dropping the item. Images can no longer be dropped into the middle of paragraphs.
• All references and footnotes (<ref> tags) are now made through the "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" menu, including the "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-reference-tooltip⧽" (manual formatting) footnotes and the ability to re-use an existing citation, both of which were previously accessible only through the "Insert" menu. The "⧼visualeditor-dialogbutton-referencelist-tooltip⧽" is still added via the "Insert" menu.
• When you add an image or other media file, you are now prompted to add an image caption immediately. You can also replace an image whilst keeping the original caption and other settings.
• All tablet users visiting the mobile web version of Wikipedias will be able to opt-in to a version of VisualEditor from 14 August. You can test the new tool by choosing the beta version of the mobile view in the Settings menu.
• The link tool has a new "Open" button that will open a linked page in another tab so you can make sure a link is the right one.
• The "Cancel" button in the toolbar has been removed based on user testing. To cancel any edit, you can leave the page by clicking the Read tab, the back button in your browser, or closing the browser window without saving your changes.

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables. Work to support Internet Explorer is ongoing.

Feedback opportunities

The Editing team will be making two presentations this weekend at Wikimania in London. The first is with product manager James Forrester and developer Trevor Parscal on Saturday at 16:30. The second is with developers Roan Kattouw and Trevor Parscal on Sunday at 12:30.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at the VisualEditor feedback page or by joining the office hours discussion on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 09:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East and Asia) or on Thursday, 18 September 2014 at 16:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Europe).

If you'd like to get this newsletter on your own page (about once a month), please subscribe at w:en:Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter for English Wikipedia only or at Meta for any project. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Revisions reverted on the Popcorn Time Wikipage

Hey VQuakr,

I disagree with your changes to the Popcorn Time Wikipage. Time4Popcorn is NOT Popcorn Time and never has been. Its not even called Popcorn Time. Why should they be putting information related to their project under a wikipage with the name of ours? Thats like me going to Firefox's Wikipedia page and posting information about Google Chrome. Sure, both are web browsers, but neither have anything to do with each other.

All the changes made to the page were purely factual and I made sure to include accurate references to everything. The majority of the changes were historical updates related to neither "forks". If Time4Popcorn wish to have a wikipedia page for their project, they should create one under the name of Time4Popcorn and stop "feeding" off our brand awareness. The line between Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn is so thin that we are constantly forced to explain via Email, Twitter, Facebook etc. that we are NOT Time4Popcorn and cannot support them in any way. By encompassing Time4Popcorn under the "Popcorn Time" name you are simply causing more work for us to constantly redirect them off to Time4Popcorn's project and helping blur that line even further. I find it unfair that the responsibility has to fall completely on us to direct users of their project in the correct direction. If it was the other way around, I'm sure T4P would feel equally about the issue.

I put references to a yet to be created Time4Popcorn page throughout my edit that anyone affiliated with their project can use to update their OWN wiki page about their OWN project. It seems unfair we have to accommodate both projects under our own Wikipage.

I understand that we don't "Own" the wikipage but I would at least like to see the separation between two unrelated projects.

XeonCore (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss on the article talk page; it has already been discussed at length there. Short answer - just because the project forked does not mean that you have control over the content of the article or get to choose what is "unrelated." VQuakr (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The project isn't a fork. Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn are two completely different projects. There is no relationship between them. Time4Popcorn have simply taken the idea and developed an application based off of that idea. By the same logic, I could start posting stuff about Popcorn Time on Netflixes page because both offer streaming of TV and Movie shows. Just because Time4Popcorn has the word "Popcorn" in it DOES NOT mean it is related. XeonCore (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, article talk page. This has been covered there before, and we are going to need a lot more than your opinion on the subject. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of Thomas Jefferson's policies and views regarding the Indians: August 14, 2014

This article, and the repeated deletions of germane material from it, are highly problematic.

It claims, among other things, that Andrew Jackson was merely following the advice that Jefferson gave to Harrison in a private letter. It nowhere states, demonstrates, shows, or attempts to argue that Jackson had access to that private letter or that any of Jefferson's views had an impact of Jackson.

The thesis that this article advances lacks scholarly and academic backing. In fact, this article itself, as it is, is an example of ORIGINAL RESEARCH as Wikipedia defines it. Even the quote from the 1803 letter in question references an online source that shows only a small portion of the entire letter. In the rest of Jefferson's letter (which I have tried to give the reader a taste for with just a short additional quote from it, with a citation which DOES show the entire letter on Yale University's site), he also expresses compassion for the Indians and a desire to see to their "happiness" and "tranquility". Why are you making such a concerted attempt to distort what he said, and further to claim without support that Jackson was mimicking or copying Jefferson's policies, when a fuller survey of Jefferson's policies would show otherwise? I am not deleting any parts of it, unlike those who insist upon keeping this unscholarly tome the way it is without the proper grounding in the wide spectrum of Jefferson's actual policies towards the Indians.

If your purpose is to show Jefferson in a negative light by selectively quoting him and censoring all context for his words and views, then that is what your farce of an article does. If the purpose is to educate readers about Jeffersonian policy, then I recommend including the material that I have been trying to enter and which vandals are removing and giving consistently poor and ridiculous justifications for doing so.

I believe there is no "consensus" to keep out the material which I have added. Rather, there are just a few individuals who keep deleting it without giving sound reasons for doing so.

What objection or argument do you have? Is there any good reason that anyone can give for keeping the quotes from Jefferson out of this article? "Consensus" makers, let's hear from each of you...

Extended content

Compassion and admiration In his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Thomas Jefferson defended American Indian culture and marveled at how the tribes of Virginia "never submitted themselves to any laws, any coercive power, any shadow of government" due to their "moral sense of right and wrong". He would later write, "I believe the Indian then to be in body and mind equal to the whiteman." As President, Jefferson made sustained efforts to win the friendship and cooperation of many Native American nations. He repeatedly articulated his aspirations for a united nation of both Whites and Indians, such as the following from a letter to the Seneca spiritual leader Handsome Lake dated November 3, 1802: "Go on then, brother, in the great reformation you have undertaken.... In all your enterprises for the good of your people, you may count with confidence on the aid and protection of the United States, and on the sincerity and zeal with which I am myself animated in the furthering of this humane work. You are our brethren of the same land; we wish your prosperity as brethren should do. Farewell." Jefferson's personal nonsectarian religiosity appears to show in his references to the Great Spirit, as in the following letter to the Choctaw nation dated December 17, 1803: "I am glad, brothers, you are willing to go and visit some other parts of our country.... we thank the Great Spirit who took care of you on the ocean, and brought you safe and in good health to the seat of our great Council; and we hope His care will accompany and protect you, on your journey and return home; and that He will preserve and prosper your nation in all its just pursuits." President Jefferson also sought full U.S. citizenship for those Indian nations which desired it, including the Cherokee. In his Eighth Annual Message to Congress on November 8, 1808, he presented to the nation a vision of White and Indian unity: "With our Indian neighbors the public peace has been steadily maintained.... And, generally, from a conviction that we consider them as part of ourselves, and cherish with sincerity their rights and interests, the attachment of the Indian tribes is gaining strength daily... and will amply requite us for the justice and friendship practiced towards them.... [O]ne of the two great divisions of the Cherokee nation have now under consideration to solicit the citizenship of the United States, and to be identified with us in laws and government, in such progressive manner as we shall think best." Years after the Jefferson presidency, the U.S. government again offered citizenship to the Cherokee who lived east of the Mississippi River, along with 640 acres per family. As other writings illustrate, his general compassion for the Indians at times gave way to impatience with nations which responded unfavorably to his communications with then, and to his frustration with the limited success of his efforts.

The correct place to have this discussion is the article talk page, ie Talk:Federal Indian Policy. This is massive overquotation; encyclopedic tone is accomplished by focusing on the use of secondary sources. Once your bold edit has been reverted common practice is to move to the talk page as discussed at "bold, revert, discuss". The lack of consensus to include is quite apparent - multiple editors have disagreed with your repeated insertion of these quotes at various articles. Please also review WP:VANDNOT re your spurious accusation of vandalism. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have pointed out that this article by itself meets no standards of academic seriousness or quality. It is making a spurious claim about Jefferson by using deceptively selective quotations, and it makes no attempt at all to demonstrate its implicit claim that Andrew Jackson got the idea for Indian removal from Thomas Jefferson. It is not I who needs to be lectured about rules, which I have not broken and for which the so-called "consensus" makers seem to have little respect.

VQuakr, what are the published limits on article length and quotation length that you appear to be enforcing? Point us to those rules, if you would, and explain why you are allowing a very lengthy quote from Jefferson's 1803 letter but not allowing much shorter quotes from his official presidential communications.

Substance-wise, what do the supposed "consensus" makers have to say in response to what I've written here and above? How do you defend the unhistorical and unsupported claim that Andrew Jackson's policies were based on Jefferson's private letter of 1803, and that as president his policies reflect that, when I have been providing very reasonable and well-vetted evidence to the contrary from academic sources? Or, is the "consensus" that Thomas Jefferson is to be mischaracterized to serve an agenda other than providing a rational and well-supported understanding of Jefferson's policies towards the Indians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.228.41 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Such a section or update, if other editors agree it is warranted, would need to be supported mostly by secondary sources and not quotes of Jefferson. Again, the best place to have this discussion is the article talk page since most of the concerned parties are probably not watching my talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply to VQuakr, Aug. 16, 2014 (second attempt)

Ok, VQuakr, I will assume that you are acting in good faith. Could you please inform me as to what the published limits are on article length and quotation length that you have in mind? Also could you please explain why the lengthy quote from Jefferson's 1803 private letter is allowable but shorter quotes from his official presidential communications are not? It would help if you would respond. Ignoring my questions and deleting them does not seem to serve the purpose of acting in good faith. Your response, please?

I have added my remarks to the Talk page of the article "Thomas Jefferson and Indian Removal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.228.41 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see little value in maintaining two parallel conversations in two different locations (I replied early today to your post on the article talk page). Since these quotes are in the public domain, there are no hard limits on quote length. It is subject to editorial discretion. VQuakr (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories

I am notifying editors who participated in the recent discussion regarding the September 11 attacks that a brand new RfC has been created. The RfC was created in a brand new discussion thread. I don't wish to see any editors be disenfranchised so you may wish to comment in the new thread. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Prejudice and discrimination navigation

Your edits on Xenophobia Transphobia Islamophobia Homophobia and Biphobia has knock on effects on nav bars at

• Category:Prejudice and discrimination
• Category:Discrimination‎,
• Category:Prejudices,
• the now named: Category:Prejudicial phobia,
• Category:Stereotypes‎ and
• Category:Bias

can you either revert your edits or make amendment to the navs.

as marked in text around navigations the related discussion is at Category talk:Prejudice and discrimination re

Parallel Subcategories: Bias‎, Discrimination, Persecution, Phobias (prejudicial), Prejudices, and Stereotypes.

Parallel categories at this level: Bias‎, Discrimination, Persecution, Phobias (prejudicial), Prejudices, and Stereotypes.

My preference is for this sequence of wording as it announces Phobia without watering down prejudice

Gregkaye (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Since when to adjectives water things down? That is not how the English language works. The parenthetical configuration was awkward and unnecessary. Feel free to start a move discussion. I will update the navs if no one else gets to it first. VQuakr (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The list contains cut and dried issues like Discrimination, Persecution, and Prejudice and one issue with a potential psychological rationale. I preferred the sequence of presenting the illness before the manifestation. I don't like the sequencing of saying its a prejudice but its a phobia preferring its a phobia and its prejudice. This is stronger. Perhaps you could use the talk page. Gregkaye (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a relevant question - is English your first language? You seem to have trouble understanding connotations in English phrasing, which results in some strange opinions regarding the importance of spelling and grammar on the meaning of phrases and sentences. Generally, parentheticals in a category should be avoided unless absolutely necessary - there is almost always a more natural way to phrase the category name. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant and demeaning and, if you have true care on issues of prejudice and equality, you know it. The title is a problem: I also like the longer winded "Prejudicial responses described as phobias" or the shorter but less accurate "Prejudice as phobia". This is regarding: Albanophobia, Anglophobia, Francophobia, Hispanophobia, Lusophobia, Russophobia and Sinophobia which deserve inclusion on a relevant list. Their inclusion in Xenophobia also affect connection to the Category:Prejudice and discrimination navigation. Gregkaye (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The question is neither irrelevant nor demeaning. You have very strange opinions about language, particularly grammar and connotations, such as one might have if they spoke English at a less than native level. That is only a problem if they attempt to push their strange opinions into article-space despite objections from other editors, as you have been doing. VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Sending "Welcome to Wikipedia" Messages

It is important that all editors be treated with respect, fairness and the assumption of good intentions. When an experienced Wikipedia editor receives a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message, how do you think the recipient might interpret the intent of the sender? When do you think sending such a message is appropriate? --Zeamays (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This was a standard warning template, Template:uw-ewsoft, in response to your behavior at Email and the associated talk page. Since the warning template was mostly motivated by your demand not to be reverted (you only actually reverted in article space once IIRC), I used the softer template. Per your request above, I have replaced it with Template:uw-ew. By "experienced" I assume you mean, "has been here a long time." We usually gauge experience levels by competence and knowledge (not chronological age of the account), and you demonstrated ignorance of our editing procedures by edit warring - hence the introductory level warning. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. I edited an article, email, to add well-documented new material yesterday. Overnight it had been reverted without any discussion, so I reinstated my edits with a request for discussion on Talk:Email. The other editor did discuss, but he then reverted most of my edits in a sequential series of edits. I have been actively involved in debating the edits, which is the spirit of Wikipedia. Now, for no apparent reason, you have accused me of "ignorance" of "our editing procedure" (as though you have a superior position). I request you to delete this message and language. I repeat, it is the philosophy of Wikipedia that all editors be treated with respect, fairness and the assumption of good intentions. --Zeamays (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Overnight it had been reverted without any discussion, so I reinstated my edits with a request for discussion on Talk:Email. Hence the warning for edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One reversion is not an edit war. I do not think it is appropriate to refer to other editors of "ignorance". Please be courteous. Please delete the unwanted notice, or I will do it for you. --Zeamays (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

One reversion, combined with the insistence that your edits must stay. You demonstrated ignorance of our editing practices by doing so - that is not an insult, just an observation. The correct response is to inform the editor of proper editing practices. Feel free to remove notices from your talk page once you have read them, per WP:BLANKING. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia is a group effort that benefits from discussions and "bold" editing, as the policy describes it, not by deleting good faith edits of others. Obviously we differ on what is polite and courteous discussion. You describe my requests as demands, my efforts to foster discussion as edit warring. But more than our disagreement on policy and etiquette, there is a practical problem with allowing deletions of good faith edits without discussion. That is, it plays into the hands of entrenched interests who patrol articles and delete anything that disagrees with their "party line". They waste our time in endless discussions, and the articles never are edited to include the material that doesn't suit their POV. I have seen this happen before. --Zeamays (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. WP:AGF much? Anyways, yes WP benefits from bold editing, but not reckless editing. It seems that you wish our policies said something different than what they do - that is fine, but WP:VP/P is thataway - you do not get to change our editing practices simply because it suits your preference. This is a demand, not a request - and it constitutes edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to explain why I requested discussion, and for that, you call me "reckless"? You use language that implies you own Wikipeia, and you "demand" changes? Please relax a little. I was attempting to describe my experience with certain editors, not you, please don't think I meant that. But you yourself need to refrain from using aggressive language with other editors, so you might want to re-read WP:AGF and meditate on it. I don't claim to own Wikipedia, but the articles cited in reckless refer to really, really contentious matters, not a sedate technical matter of priority in the history of technology. --Zeamays (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

SSM

Hello - you recently sent a message to my Talk page discussing "Edit Wars". Thank you, though - in this case - it was a bit premature. The Talk page of SSM was engaged during editing. Given the topic can be controversial and often "passionate"? The effort on my part is strictly to attain and maintain neutrality while honoring other editor's POV. Easier said than done in some Articles vs others. So, we move forward in good faith and offer dignity to all.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Integrityandhonesty: au contraire, your additional WP:3RR violation after the warning could easily have resulted in your being blocked. The admin chose to lock the article to prevent all edits instead. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we see this differently. As the Talk page demonstrates it is clear as day it was engaged with earnest, respect and in good faith. A difference in POV is not a valid reason to block an Editor. If one breaths they have a POV. Now, attempts at vandalism, disrespect and so on is, of course, Wikipedia policy to block such behavior. All the bestIntegrityandhonesty (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Integrityandhonesty: The 3RR is a bright-line rule, so it does not matter if you are discussing on the talk page at the same time. This is not a matter of opinion; the warning was simply to notify you of the policy. VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor, is this a valid reason to block an Editor. This happens by chance thousands of times a day on Wikipedia. So, I really don't see your point at all. It's best we end it here.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon

			You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202). Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to put POV spin on the article Moon landing conspiracy theories, with no real sources to back up the specific statements, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop impugning my motives, and stop calling my edits and removal of POV spin and unsourced statements "disruptive editing". The point is that source does not back up that last sentence, and the sentence doesn’t even get Percy/Bennet’s point. It’s just pro-Apollo apologist spin and POV. They KNEW it could never be “broadcast live”...either for real or as a hoax. But said that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast live. (And in their view for the reason of too high a risk etc...) The distinction is important, and is sloppily overlooked (apparently by POV Apollo apologists)...the statement is sloppy inaccurate and unsourced. That webpage does not make the point made in the sentence. It’s just POV spin and synthesis. No warrant in that paragraph. I wrote on the article talk page, please click right here. And see what was said. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR. You know the drill... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RT not Reliable Source?!

Claiming that RT, an internationally recognized News Station is not RS is a bit strange to say the least. Can you point me to a rule here on WP that clearly states that RT is not RS, and if so, I assume that Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CBS, BBC are not RS either? 212.181.160.22 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Again RS nonsense

You did not even read the document, did you? If Theodore Postol, a renowned MIT Professor and author of the document/report, is not a Reliable Source, then nothing is. And Brown Moses/Elliot Higgins and Sayerslle/Dan Kaszeta definitely isn't. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could review the third paragraph of their article. Frankly, the source is so far from reliable that it is silly to even respond. Best of luck, and please note that your next revert on that article will likely result in a block. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

SP

I must ask what you consider trolling about the IPs comment. Nothing about it screams trolling to me.

By the by I also must ask you to not template the regulars. It is unhelpful and frustrating to receive a message telling to me to avoid attacking people especially when I did not do anything of the sort. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Taylor Trescott: the IP is implying another editor only respects WP:BLP when it comes to male subjects. This is unsubstantiated trolling, and a thinly-veiled personal attack against her. It should be removed per WP:TPG. By restoring the material you, in my opinion, took ownership of the attack hence the template. I subscribe to WP:TTR regarding "templating the regulars"; seniority does not convey privilege here. I will however do my best to respect your wishes unless impractical. Kind regards, and thank you for your follow up and consideration. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem on Graham story

There have now been arrest and charges in that event. According to Wikipedia this now changes person of interest to "suspect" and allows naming. I can understand if IP cannot remove the blp, but it needs removal. Also person of interest header needs to be changed to "suspect."00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.74.119 (talk)

Please quote the exact policy that leads you to believe that a person being charged changes the guidance at WP:BLPCRIME. Feel free to make changes to the article that do not violate BLP - I only object to removal of the hidden reminder to keep the name out and addition of the name of a person who has not been convicted. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

About the references on the Means End article

Hi VQuakr, you recently edited a Wikipedia article about Means End that I created. I'd like to know why the Youtube and Facebooksources were removed. Without them, some of the information on the page has no evidence. I'm new to Wikipedia as you may know so I'd just like some clarification. JAGuar96 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Because they are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Just dropping by to say thank you for your input on the John Walsh article. I appreciated your thoughtfulness and consideration of the actual issue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No one involved in the edit warring on that article came out looking great. I hoped Msnicki would respond better to me given our civil interactions in the past. No such luck it would seem. Actions speak louder than words, though, so hopefully they will balance their ungracious talk page bluster with greater care in article space. If not, for borderline cases such as this one I suggest using WP:BLP/N rather than repeated reverts. For unambiguous cases, cite BLP in your edit summary (reversions of BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR) and be prepared to explain yourself at EW/N. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Noting BLP in the edit summary is good advice that I shall remember. I had too many shitstorms hit me on totally unrelated topics all at one this past week (phase of the moon?) and I was getting pretty worn down. But I prevailed on this one, so I'm happy enough. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

About the article that was previously deleted

I was trying to get the old article but I coppied it wrong and then dang you deleted the thing right when I got it! It has a really long and odd history also. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khursheed Khan (Co editor)-I keep on messing it up since it has a completely different name! Wgolf (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That AfD was closed as G4, but I do not see where one on him was ever actually closed as delete. Consider nominating for speedy under G5 or G11 instead and reporting the sockpuppet at WP:SPI (the original really should have a SPI page anyways). VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well check out the sock puppet report I just put for the user-apparently there are tons of them (and now accidentally is under 3 different ones by me as I was trying to root it to the original and kept on failing) Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

-BTW sorry about that but yeah it is strange I put up a AFD only to discover that part then, I don't know what to say now considering how many sock puppets there seems to be. Wgolf (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Luc Montanier's stance on homeopathy

On the Luc Montagnier page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier -- I'm amazed that you restore a link like this- http://web.archive.org/web/20140413144840/http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2011-episodes/cure-or-con , and it suffices as a source to repeat what is disinformation about the opinions of a living Nobel-prize winning scientist. 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.148.231 (talk • contribs) 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Mrsip

You seem to have it backwards. The source provided that you link above appears reliable, while the source provided for its removal, here is a blog and is in no way reliable. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC) ETA - the author of that blog is Dana Ullman - to quote our article quoting Time, "the leading proselytizer of homeopathy." VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, "Your" (for lack of a better word) link leads to a TV show episode. The episode is premised around debunking homeopathy. This episode is used as evidence that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]", as claimed by some homeopaths. I watched this TV show. The narrator doesn't even use the name "Luc Montagnier". They refer to him indirectly, calling him "a Nobel prize winner", and they show on screen for a few seconds a picture of what appears to be a journal article by Montagnier and many colleagues. The narrator says "none of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'"

This link is extremely weak to use as a reference that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]". Firstly, the quote the TV show uses is not even a full sentence from him! Your entire evidence that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]" therefore, is a completely decontextualised and partial quote from a not explicitly named scientist, that has been reproduced on a TV show with an explicit bias towards debunking homeopathy. If that's not weak, I don't know what is.

Secondly, the quote refers to extrapolating Montagnier's work to 'products', and not to the practice or theory of homeopathy. This is a critically important distinction. Montagnier is not disputing homeopathy here, although he perhaps disputes using his work to support homeopathic products. These are the actions of a good scientist!

Thirdly, it is disturbing and suspicious that the narrator does not actually attribute the quote to Montagnier by name. A good source does not consist of a decontextualised, partial quote. For example, the TV show could have said to him, "We have a woman here who claims she can cure breast cancer with a homeopathic remedy called 'ABC 12x'. She claims it works, and that your research on high water dilutions provides evidence that it works". In response, Montaginer could have written, "Yes I've done some work on high water dilutions, but I cannot extrapolate my findings to the products used in homeopathy."

If this were the actual context of the exchange between the TV show and Montagnier, would you still be comfortable claiming that Montagnier has "disputed any such support [for homeopathy]"?

Your link to the TV show is extremely weak on its own; but even more so when the assertion it supposedly backs is compared with Montagnier's comments to the peer-reviewed journal 'Science'. You can find these quotes from my link, which is to a blog post written by a professional on the Huffington Post's blog section. The blog publishes direct quotes from the 'Science' article, and it is these quotes- from a peer-reviewed journal- that provide evidence against the assertion that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]".

The peer-reviewed article referred to is the following: Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China", Science, 24 December 2010). Article is found here- http://www.scribd.com/doc/47426344/Luc-Montagnier-French-Nobelist-on-homeopathy.

To quote the 'Science' article directly, Luc Montagnier told Martin Enserink-

"Q: Do you think there’s something to homeopathy as well? L.M: I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10(-18) dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10(-18), you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

and

"Q: Aren’t you worried that your colleagues will think you have drifted into pseudo-science? L.M.: No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

From these quotes can see that, in sum, Montagnier lends more support than dissent to homeopathy. These quotes therefore provide evidence directly against the already weakly-backed assertion that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]."

Please note that I am not making an assertion on the wikipedia page: I am disputing an existing one because it has a weak source, and because there is evidence from a strong source ('Science') that contradicts "your" weak source (which is a TV show with an explicit bias). The link that I provide in my comments is not intended to be published as a source on the main wikipedia page; it is intended to highlight that the claims being made about Montagnier on Wikipedia contrast markedly with the quotes published in a peer-reviewed journal. My link reproduces those quotes.

In addition to the above, the sentence on the Wikipedia page- "He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" should also be deleted because it is blatantly false. Montagnier was working within the dilution range normally used daily by homeopaths, for example, 10(-12) is a common homeopathic dilution. He says that they "lose the signal" at the "extremely high" end of the scale. Homeopathy uses dilutions both at the levels Montagnier was using, and higher. Montagnier found signals at some of the dilutions homeopaths use, but not at all the levels. That is what he was saying. Stating that "he did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" is an outright false statement. It would be far better to leave the direct quote from 'Science' as a full, unbroken quote, and remove the silly opinion that has been inserted in the middle of it that breaks the quote up and misrepresents the true meaning of Montagnier's words.

The following statement must also be removed from the Wikipedia page on Luc Montagnier- "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".

There is no evidence at all that Luc Montagnier was asked by the TV show "if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed", like the wikipedia article falsely states. Once again, I refer to to the contents of this TV show itself: please watch "your" own links. The narrator says this: "None of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'" At no point does the TV show pose the question to Montagnier "Does your work provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths have claimed?" or anything even remotely like this.

The changes that need to be made are thus as follows:

1. The introductory paragraph on Luc Montagnier currently reads, in part: "In 2009, Montagnier published two controversial research studies[3] that some homeopaths claimed as support for homeopathy. Although Montagnier disputed any such support,[4] many scientists greeted his claims with scorn and harsh criticism.[3][5][6]"

It should be edited to read: "In 2009, Montagnier published two controversial research studies[3] that some homeopaths claimed as support for homeopathy. Many scientists greeted his claims with scorn and harsh criticism.[3][5][6]

2. The body of the article on Luc Montagnier says: "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".[4]"

This entire sentence should be removed, since it is demonstrably false.

3. The body of the article on Luc Montagnier says: He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: "We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10−18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10−18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

This should be edited to read: He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10−18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10−18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

VQuakr, I would like to draw your attention to the wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons". " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous".

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."

I therefore request that you please make the changes as I have detailed above, or else provide a suitable source for the claims being made about Luc Montagnier.

41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.84.226.127 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take to the article talk page, but you might want to review WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS first. You'll probably also want to work on brevity. BLP is not being violated by quoting a popular source that says the subject does not support the extrapolation being done by homeopathy supporters. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr-

1. You need to actually watch the source that you are restoring. Please, watch the TV show, and then come and tell me where they ask Montagnier this question: "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed..." --> The truth is that the TV show never put this question to him. You are allowing blatantly and demonstrably false information to stand. Where is your intellectual integrity?

2. This article is making false claims about a living person. The TV show quotes a few words without any context, and you think this is a better source than direct quotes published in 'Science'? Again, where is your intellectual integrity?

3. "Popular source"... I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? Is it an official wikipedia term I am unfamiliar with?

4. How can you think that a block quote from 'Science' quoting Montagnier is better off when a polemic opinion containing demonstrably false information is inserted in the middle of it?

5. I'd like to point out that if Montagnier has in fact disputed homeopathy, then surely there would be a better reference than 8 decontextualised and unattributed words on a TV show. Surely! The fact is that Montagnier is a controversial man in large part precisely because he has not disputed homeopathy.

Once again, I'll point out that I am not advocating any additions to this article, I just want to remove that information which is not true. But it seems that you are not interested in raising the standard of this article.

I'd like to ask another editor to review the decisions that you have made on this article. I don't think you have acted within the Wikipedia guidelines, and I think this is serious because this article involves false information about a living person. Please advise how I may do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.151.160 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

1. I did watch the show; it is an adequate source for the material in the article. Your presumption is not automatic fact, and it is unrealistic of you to expect others to simply believe your say-so.

2. You have not supported your "false claims" statement.

3. No, just a "VQuakr" term. I meant a general interest source, as opposed to a peer-reviewed source.

4. "Demonstrably false" is your term and has not been supported. The quote you provided was from an interview (not a peer reviewed article), and the quote is not at odds with the content of the Luc Montagnier article.

5. Verifiability, as "truth" tends to be easy to subvert.

Yes, you have multiple avenues available to bring this before a wider audience. Your first step should be the article talk page, here, which I linked in my previous reply. WP:DR has a list of all dispute resolutions available, but all presume the article talk page avenue has been exhausted. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr:

1. The TV show does not ask Montagnier this question. How can Wikipedia say it does, when it does not? This is easily proved by watching the TV show.

2. The false claims are that he disputes homeopathy. I have supported my argument very well, for which you took me to task for my lack of brevity. Yet again I remind you that since I am not making a published claim, I do not have to provide a source; I provide both an argument and a source ('Science') nevertheless. Take it as a bonus. The onus is on you to provide a source that Montagnier disputes homeopathy.

3. Thank you for the clarification of your term "popular source".

4. The quote is at odds with the claim that Montagnier supports homeopathy. It is a strong source ('Science'), and Montagnier's comments therein provide far stronger evidence that he supports homeopathy, than your TV show link provides evidence that he does not.

5. I'm not sure what you intend to convey by your point number 5. If you intend to claim that one can verify that Montagnier disputes homeopathy, then I'll strongly disagree and say that I think I've written enough on this point already.

As a newb, I do not wish to get into an editing war, since I'm at a substantial disadvantage technically and process-wise. Nevertheless I have made the changes I think necessary (I have detailed these three changes above) on the article. I have only deleted words, I have not added any. I have supported my changes by way of arguments on the talk page. These arguments are the same I used here but, as you suggested, in a shorter form. Thank you for the guidance you have offered, to take it to the talk page. I hope more people will weigh in.

41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

You removed cited content, which I restored. Suggest getting consensus on the talk page before further article-space removals. Re #5, I was referring to an oft-cited Wiki-essay and linking WP:V. It was not intended to be specific to your edits other than your reference to "truth." VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to Undelete page on Interbeing

Recently you tagged my page on Interbeing for speedy deletion claiming that it plagiarized this page. In fact, the page you referenced had copied the material from the original source (and clearly cites that source itself) that I cited on the Interbeing page itself. The material that I included was clearly cited as a quotation and also provided a link back to the original source. It is very clear from that page that the material included is released under a Creative Commons License and it says explicitly at the bottom of the original author's work "Feel free to copy and share."

I would appreciate if you would un-delete my content. I appreciate your effort as a community member at keeping Wikipedia clean, but it would be nice if you could follow the links provided in the actual articles themselves and confirm that the sources cited/quoted actually are released under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia policies. I did this homework myself prior to writing the original article and find it frustrating that the editors monitoring the community are not quite as diligent. Thanks!

Morphatic (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The web page you cite does not make clear that it is a Wikipedia-compliant CC license (it just says "a creative commons license."). I think it is unlikely that this is going to be accepted as an article for a number of other reasons, primarily because the subject itself does not appear to be notable. Please consider reading your first article. If you still think it meets our criteria for an article and want it undeleted, please contact the actual deleting administrator, User:Jimfbleak, or post a request at WP:REFUND - I do not have the technical permissions necessary to delete or undelete an article. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the ping above, and I can only agree with VQuakr. The licence is unclear (many CC licences exclude commercial use and are not acceptable), the topic is of dubious notability, and the content is an essay giving a personal view rather than the basis of a factual encyclopaedia article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

Did you know?

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

Internet Explorer 10 and 11 users now have access to VisualEditor. This means that about 5% of Wikimedia's users will now get an "Edit" tab alongside the existing "Edit source" tab. Support for Internet Explorer 9 is planned for the future.

Tablet users browsing the site's mobile mode now have the option of using a mobile-specific form of VisualEditor. More editing tools, and availability of VisualEditor on smartphones, is planned for the future. The mobile version of VisualEditor was tweaked to show the context menu for citations instead of basic references (bug 68897). A bug that broke the editor in iOS was corrected and released early (bug 68949). For mobile tablet users, three bugs related to scrolling were fixed (bug 66697, bug 68828, bug 69630). You can use VisualEditor on the mobile version of Wikipedia from your tablet by clicking on the cog in the top-right when editing a page and choosing which editor to use.

TemplateData editor

A tool for editing TemplateData will be deployed to more Wikipedias soon.  Other Wikipedias and some other projects may receive access next month. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation.  When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top.  Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358). 

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon, perhaps in late October.

The team is also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables, and early work for this may appear within the month. Please comment on the design at Mediawiki.org.

In the future, real-time collaborative editing may be possible in VisualEditor. Some early preparatory work for this was recently done.

Supporting your wiki

At Wikimania, several developers gave presentations about VisualEditor. A translation sprint focused on improving access to VisualEditor was supported by many people. Deryck Chan was the top translator. Special honors also go to संजीव कुमार (Sanjeev Kumar), Robby, Takot, Bachounda, Bjankuloski06 and Ата. A summary of the work achieved by the translation community has been posted here. Thank you all for your work.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please join the office hours on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 18:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Africa and Europe) and on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC on IRC.

Give feedback on VisualEditor at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta. To help with translations, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre at Meta. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Rtc#October_2014

An editwar always needs at least two people. why was only I warned and not the other person? --rtc (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rtc: you were edit warring against the consensus on the talk page at at least two other editors, which is the answer to your question. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the talk page. --rtc (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If that is your assessment, then why are you repeatedly adding material to the article? VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To inform readers about the debate. --rtc (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Geller Revisions

Although you restored the original content I edited this morning, you did not respond to the substantive claims I made in regard to the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkin302 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you claiming, then, to be IP 72.69.164.145? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right. - Potemkin. I'm new to this type of communication, apologies if this is not the correct way to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkin302 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Orangemike: it appears the IP created an account after I invited them to do so. I just gave the new account a fresh welcome.

@Potemkin302: I just re-checked the article talk page at Talk:Pamela Geller, and it does not appear to have been edited in several weeks. Where did you make these claims regarding the content removals? In any case, if you still have concerns about the content of that article, I suggest the best place to converse about it is the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your gift and suggestions! It is a privilege to meet you. Here is a brownie for you as a return gift! Looking forward to your suggestions and co-operations in future also. :) -- Sudip1993. Sudip1993 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It really is two-thirds

I gave you the full supporting quote on the talk page here. It is not WP:SYNTH to add 1/3 + 1/3 and come up with 2/3. Per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not numerical summarization, it is not WP:SYNTH to do simple arithmetic. When I originally wrote the sentence I said "roughly two-thirds". User:Diannaa trimmed out the "roughly" here, explaining here that when you say two-thirds, everyone knows that's an approximation. I think you should restore the "two-thirds" like you said you would if the support was provided. Btw, you're on the hairy edge of 3RR. You're at 3 if you don't count your initial deletion, 4 if you do. Msnicki (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations are 3RR exempt. Please note that 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement - you can and have been edit warring without being in technical violation. In this case 1/3 + 1/3 != 2/3, but I will follow up on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to add - from the same section of the essay you quoted - "If in any doubt about summarization vs. statistical reinterpretation, discuss it first." VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP reverts are indeed 3RR exempt but only if you can successfully make the case that you were reverting an actual BLP violation, which I don't think you can do. Simple arithmetic is not statistical interpretation. I think the guidelines I cited make that pretty clear. The example they gave was adding integers, but I'm pretty sure they'd also accept adding fractions. Msnicki (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You cited an essay, not a guideline. Feel free to pursue a consensus on the article talk page. What about "most" instead of "much"? That probably is verifiable. VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, please drop the stick before we have to take you to one of the drama boards; it won't end well for you. I say this sincerely. VQ, I'd say "much" or "a substantial amount" or whatever we can verify from the investigation itself. NYT is an estimate, at most we can say NYT alleged X amount... Montanabw^(talk) 06:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That old thing?

I thank thee back, Friend V. We are cautioned against letting hate into our hearts; but I find it hard to love those misguided children of a once-proud nation. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I came across it reviewing the closure per a request elsewhere. Sanity is too uncommon around here and merits some small measure of recognition. VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eliot Higgins

Additional sources stating Eliot Higgins cannot understand the language of the conflict he became famous for covering:

Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/16/in-praise-of-brown-moses-blog-syria-higgins "With a background in finance and administration and speaking no Arabic"

New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/11/25/rocket-man-2 "But Higgins doesn’t speak Arabic"

His own kickstarter page https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat "Higgins began his Brown Moses blog in March 2012, devoting himself to studying everything he could find online about the Syrian conflict. Unable to understand or speak Arabic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by QBakr (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest raising the issue on the article talk page, here. VQuakr (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

where to find Shiver and Fears

Shiver and Fears is found on amazon, zazzle, behance, facebook, twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHard21 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Set

This is a polite notification. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Gregkaye. That talk page is busy enough without archive sizing discussions, so I intend to not discuss it further on the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—November 2014

Did you know?

VisualEditor is also available on the mobile version of Wikipedia. Login and click the pencil icon to open the page you want to edit. Click on the gear-shaped settings in the upper-right corner, to pick which editor to use. Choose "Edit" to use VisualEditor, or "Edit source" to use the wikitext editor.

It will remember whether you used wikitext or VisualEditor, and use the same editor the next time you edit an article.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor. Not all features are available in Mobile Web.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and requests, and worked on support for editing tables and for using non-Latin languages. Their weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org. Informal notes from the recent quarterly review were posted on Meta.

Recent improvements

The French Wikipedia should see better search results for links, templates, and media because the new search engine was turned on for everyone there. This change is expected at the Chinese and German Wikipedias next week, and eventually at the English Wikipedia.

The "pawn" system has been mostly replaced. Bugs in this system sometimes added a chess pawn character to wikitext. The replacement provides better support for non-Latin languages, with full support hopefully coming soon.

VisualEditor is now provided to editors who use Internet Explorer 10 or 11 on desktop and mobile devices. Internet Explorer 9 is not supported yet.

The keyboard shortcuts for items in the toolbar's menus are now shown in the menus. VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme from the User Experience / Design group. The appearance of dialogs has already changed in one Mobile version. The appearance on desktops will change soon. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" design and the new "MediaWiki" theme which will replace it.)

Several bugs were fixed for internal and external links. Improvements to MediaWiki's search solved an annoying problem: If you searched for the full name of the page or file that you wanted to link, sometimes the search program could not find the page. A link inside a template, to a local page that does not exist, will now show red, exactly as it does when reading the page. Due to a error, for about two weeks this also affected all external links inside templates. Opening an auto-numbered link node like [2] with the keyboard used to open the wrong link tool. These problems have all been fixed.

TemplateData

The tool for quickly editing TemplateData will be deployed to all Wikimedia Foundation wikis on Thursday, 6 November.  This tool is already available on the biggest 40 Wikipedias, and now all wikis will have access to it. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation.  When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top.  Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

You can use the new autovalue setting to pre-load a value into a template. This can be used to substitute dates, as in this example, or to add the most common response for that parameter. The autovalue can be easily overridden by the editor, by typing something else in the field.

In TemplateData, you may define a parameter as "required". The template dialog in VisualEditor will warn editors if they leave a "required" parameter empty, and they will not be able to delete that parameter. If the template can function without this parameter, then please mark it as "suggested" or "optional" in TemplateData instead.

Looking ahead

Basic support for inserting tables and changing the number of rows and columns in tables will appear next Wednesday. Advanced features, like dragging columns to different places, will be possible later. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon. To help editors find the most important items more quickly, some items in the toolbar menus will be hidden behind a "More" item, such as "underlining" in the styling menu. The appearance of the media search dialog will improve, to make picking between possible images easier and more visual. The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap.

The user guide will be updated soon to add information about editing tables. The translations for most languages except Spanish, French, and Dutch are significantly out of date. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language. Talk to us if you need help exporting the translated guide to your wiki.

You can influence VisualEditor's design. Tell the VisualEditor team what you want changed during the office hours via IRC. The next sessions are on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC and on Wednesday 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC. You can also share your ideas at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Also, user experience researcher Abbey Ripstra is looking for editors to show her how they edit Wikipedia. Please sign up for the research program if you would like to hear about opportunities.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback to Debito Arudou BLP

Hello VQuakr. As the subject of the BLP, I just wanted to say thank you for your comments on the threaded discussion to the Debito Arudou BLP.

I would like to ask one favor: Could you also write in the survey above the threaded comments (link here) a "Yes", "No", "Maybe" etc summary of your argument? Thank you very much for your time and input. Arudoudebito (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy to comment, but see WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:CONSENSUS. "Voting" in the survey is unnecessary and irrelevant. VQuakr (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted article

@Axl: should we take "National Operation Anti-Vivisection" to deletion review? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh. The reply on the AfD at least let us know what the closer was thinking. Still not a great close in my opinion, but probably validly within the closer's discretion. Given how borderline the organization's notability is at this point, IMHO the DRV would not be worth the community's time. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Srully Abe Stein

Which other info do you need for this article?

Also, what's wrong with the writings that you keep on deleting it? (Fultichan (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC))

No indication that the section is encyclopedically relevant (ie, the subject matter is significant), because all the sources are intellectually related to the topic. Most people are not notable enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

browsing around, I also see that they are reference to Srully in a Hebrew Wiki page for a while (http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%A4%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9F), and while a wiki page is not an outside source, it showes established intrest and notabilty. 160.39.50.157 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also here (http://www.kaveshtiebel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2131&p=53406&hilit=%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91+%D7%90%D7%91%D7%9F#p53406) you have an outside in depth quote and discussion about Srully's theology and writings. as well as here: http://www.kaveshtiebel.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2061&hilit=%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91+%D7%90%D7%91%D7%9F

• Updated with links to outside sources that discuss Srully's work. Fultichan (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where? All I see are forums and facebook, neither of which are remotely reliable. Your IP geolocates to Columbia, BTW - your COI is showing. VQuakr (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch!

Hi VQuakr: Agree with your observation regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srully Abe Stein as this subject has now deservedly been deleted. See my comments [3] as it would seem that the contributions of User Fultichan (talk · contribs) need to be monitored since that account is self-admittedly evidently in violation of WP:Group accounts aka Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts and WP:Paid editing aka Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing. Regards, IZAK (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hope you are well. I know that we were at odds before, on one of the < 12 topics I have edited, but I need your opinion.

This is not in line with being civil...

Your continued participation on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to me, Fomeister. We wound up going through two RFCs and an Arbitration committee proceeding to arrive at the conclusion that using "Chelsea" was appropriate, although I, like you, tend to think that using "Bradley" for things done under that name is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs)

I do not see how that violates WP:CIVIL. VQuakr (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Emily Schooley

Hey. I have taken the time to recreate the Emily Schooley article with more sources, including some articles from regional newspapers which should meet criteria for sources. Not sure if you want to weigh in again. Luke nominated it for deletion right away, despite the work I put into improving it. Sadfatandalone (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Denise Donnelly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Denise Donnelly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Strike(unit) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Strike(unit). Since you had some involvement with the Strike(unit) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—December 2014

Did you know?

Basic table editing is now available in VisualEditor. You can add and remove rows and columns from existing tables at the click of a button.

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 table editing and performance. Their weekly status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

VisualEditor was deployed to several hundred remaining wikis as an opt-in beta feature at the end of November, except for most Wiktionaries (which depend heavily upon templates) and all Wikisources (which await integration with ProofreadPage).

Recent improvements

Basic support for editing tables is available. You can insert new tables, add and remove rows and columns, set or remove a caption for a table, and merge cells together. To change the contents of a cell, double-click inside it. More features will be added in the coming months. In addition, VisualEditor now ignores broken, invalid rowspan and colspan elements, instead of trying to repair them.

You can now use find and replace in VisualEditor, reachable through the tool menu or by pressing ⌃ Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F.

You can now create and edit simple <blockquote> paragraphs for quoting and indenting content. This changes a "Paragraph" into a "Block quote".

Some new keyboard sequences can be used to format content. At the start of the line, typing "*  " will make the line a bullet list; "1.  " or "# " will make it a numbered list; "==" will make it a section heading; ": " will make it a blockquote. If you didn't mean to use these tools, you can press undo to undo the formatting change. There are also two other keyboard sequences: "[[" for opening the link tool, and "{{" for opening the template tool, to help experienced editors. The existing standard keyboard shortcuts, like ⌃ Ctrl+K to open the link editor, still work.

If you add a category that has been redirected, then VisualEditor now adds its target. Categories without description pages show up as red.

You can again create and edit galleries as wikitext code.

Looking ahead

VisualEditor will replace the existing design with a new theme designed by the User Experience group. The new theme will be visible for desktop systems at MediaWiki.org in late December and at other sites early January. (You can see a developer preview of the old "Apex" theme and the new "MediaWiki" one which will replace it.)

The Editing team plans to add auto-fill features for citations in January. Planned changes to the media search dialog will make choosing between possible images easier.

Help

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Translations of the user guide for most languages are oudated. Ukrainian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, and Dutch translators are nearly current. Please help complete the current translations for users who speak your language.
• Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 at 22:00 UTC.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.

If you would like to help with translations of this newsletter, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta.

Thank you! WhatamIdoing (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Apollo hoax

Thank you for considering WP:DENY, however I am referring to my comments at Talk:Apollo 12#Hoax in several edit summaries in an effort to constructively focus the editor. Would you please reinstate it? —EncMstr (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@EncMstr: Done. Please note that the editor in question has spammed their hoax theory on the English and German Wikipedias for months and is banned from both projects as a result. Their use of multiple IP addresses is in direct violation of their ban, and at no point in their scores of spammed posts have they responded to any feedback. They are precisely the sort of editor for which WP:DENY was written. VQuakr (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the history: I was unaware. If he fails to respond within 24 hours to what I have done, I'll apply DENY myself. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

EncMstr, I found this after undoing your revert. I've restored and collapsed Siegfried's arguments, not realizing he was a serial troll. If you had said so in your edit summary or remarked on the talk page I would have left well enough alone. Feel free to remove it again. Meanwhile, I've learned about WP:DENY--never heard of it in all these years. Yopienso (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. At the time I reverted and made edit summaries, I was unaware of the history. I see the latest IP is blocked, so let's just let it go as is. If I see future activity, I'll deny and block. —EncMstr (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)