User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


New Wikiproject!

Hello, VQuakr! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello VQuakr/Archives,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 812 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism @ Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (March 18, 2017)

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Portland Institute for Contemporary Art (415 Southwest 10th Avenue #300, Portland 97205) on Saturday, March 18, 2017 from 10:00am – 5:00pm. For more information, visit Eventbrite.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Slate Star Codex

As you have edited the Slate Star Codex article, I thought you might be interested to know that it has been nominated for deletion. I was notified by the nominator, but it doesn't look like you were, so I am rectifying that situation by leaving this comment. Please note that deletion discussions are not votes, and closing administrators might pay greater attention to comments referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines than to those that don't, or those that simply restate points already made. It's also worth noting that deletion discussions are said to typically remain open for at least 7 days, except in cases where credible grounds for speedy deletion are identified.--greenrd (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification! VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

20:49 edit on the "Depleted Uranium" page

Hello, Please could you tell me where do you see ANY personal work on my 20:49 edit "Edit on the contamination of uranium with other isotopes" ? I am only quoting Barbara Koeppel from the Washington Spectator, Asaf Durakovic's work in the journal Military Medicine, one New York Times article, one IRIN (UN news agency) article and a Democracy Now article (you see that I took your first comments into account !!!). On the topic of depleted uranium the US MoD point of view is HIGHLY debated, this HAS to be on Wikipedia - there are SEVERAL proofs that the uranium used in Iraq was NOT always depleted. Best regards, Florent Pirot — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlorentPirot (talk • contribs)

@FlorentPirot: there are multiple problems with this string of edits. There might be some usable material hidden in there, but it needs a LOT of work before it is ready for mainspace. Please make use of the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have put everything on the Talk page. FlorentPirot (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll address there. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VQuakr. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi VQuakr! I am still a n00b so don't know if you get a notification, but I left a reply to you on my talk page regarding GNH. Thanks!! --TheQw 20:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs) By the way, forgot to add - I think the page should actually be renamed "Gross National Happiness Index of Bhutan" as some people might not know what GNH stands for, plus there are other GNH indices out there. Is that possible, or should I (if the community agrees) start a new page with the correct title? Thanks for your help! --TheQw 20:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

CEO

Hi,

I agree with you that being the CEO of a notable organisation is a CCS. However, according to what I've been told recently (see this and this), CEO is, believe it or not, not a strong connexion and therefore not significant. I sense another iteration of this discussion coming up, do you? Adam9007 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: what does a "strong connexion" have to do with anything? I do not see where any spelling variant of that appears at WP:CSD. VQuakr (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The RfC that says significance can be inherited if there is a strong association with a notable entity is mainly why such a connexion is considered significant by some. You participated in it and said CEO of a notable company is a CCS. CEO falling under the description of "strong association" has been challenged. Adam9007 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't remember that at all. It seems like too much focus is being made on the "case law" RfC aspect; speedy deletion is meant to be for unambiguous cases. Could the GNG be plausibly met for the subject, based on the claims in the article? If yes, then the article contains a CCS. VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
And therein lies the problem: even that is subjective. What we think is plausible may not be (often isn't) what others think is. It's the perfect recipe for conflict. I should know: I've had enough of it. Needless to say, I haven't been in a gay mood lately . Adam9007 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to hear your mood has been affected. This is a website; it shouldn't do that. VQuakr (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Visit West Japan article

Hello,

I would like to retrieve my article for improvement so it might be accepted in the future. Can I make it a draft?Maria Faith Tabotabo Tijani (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Maria Faith Tabotabo Tijani:. You'll need to contact the admin, Jimfbleak, or post a request at WP:REFUND. I tagged the article for deletion, but cannot delete or undelete articles. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The article move you just carried out...

... did you see the notice at the top of the article, pointing out that a Requested Move discussion was (and still is) taking place? Exemplo347 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, closing it now. VQuakr (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-POV editing

Would it be inappropriate for me to ask you, as an administrator, whether I have a basis for making a complaint against an editor for POV-pushing and general non-neutral editing? I want to do this properly, and I'm not sure if I have a basis for requesting sanctions. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps you are not an editor. Could you help all the same? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@L.R. Wormwood: you are correct that I am not an admin. Can I suggest NeilN as a likely better source of sound advice? VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I have since changed my mind, but thank you for your help anyway. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

nnCron article

New links added. What's up with "deletion process"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esniper (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Esniper: Proposed deletion is a lightweight process; you can just remove the tag from the top of the article if you think it meets the GNG. I see a bunch (too many probably) of cites back to nncron.ru/help/* and a few links to download sites, but nothing that would convey notability. Which source or sources do you think best show notability as defined at WP:GNG? VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate External Links

Hi VQuakr, can you please offer guidance re: inappropriate external links for the Ashley Mary Nunes page? I've looked through the page but am unsure which links you're referring to (IMDB perhaps?), but I will gladly remove them. Please advise - thank you! Dr Fun111 (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dr Fun111: several of the "sources" on the page did/do not mention the subject. The edit that prompted my warning was this, in which you restored some without any comment. VQuakr (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I just removed the external links that did not mention the subject. I also omitted the Early Life section. I was unsure if I could link to the subject's website for bio information. I saw this done on another horror actress’ Wikipedia page (Jessica Cameron) but wanted to make sure it was ok? (Dr Fun111 (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

@Dr Fun111: there is nothing wrong with primary sources as long as the information doesn't promote the subject, isn't contentious, and doesn't form the primary basis of the article. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I put Early Life back in with the subject's web page as the primary source. Please let me know if there are any additional changes that need to be made? Thank you. (Dr Fun111 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC))

Notification of Syrian Civil War general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Information icon Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, the self-awareness is strong in this one... VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. And since you are well aware that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable"(your emphasis),[1] this is nothing but harassment. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Again with the cherry-picking quotes from policy. Personal attack noted. VQuakr (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I provided diffs. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You provided a diff, not a justification. Do you always double down on dumb decisions, or do you occasionally self-assess first? VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I linked to them. You just accused me of a personal attack here, without providing any justification for your accusation. Words like "play dumb", "stupidly unreliable" and "dumb decisions" is nothing but harassment. Either you stop it right now or ANI is next stop. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably gonna want to read WP:HARASS first. VQuakr (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I may. I think the "page in a nutshell" do for today: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That's the sort of policy you want to carefully read (past the first sentence) prior to throwing around spurious accusations. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I have read past the first sentence. I am not "throwing around spurious accusations". I povided diffs. Stop now. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You have not provided any diffs of harassment. Claiming you have is a personal attack. VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: looks like the discussion came to a natural close before I saw the notice here. A couple of takeaways:
  • I tend to communicate under the principle that there is a hierarchy of pages, and the tone of conversation may vary between them. In article space there should be zero communication directed at editors; in article space edit summaries there should be almost zero communication directed at editors and it should be very neutral; in article talk space the discussion should still focus on article content; and in user talk space the guidelines are much more relaxed. Even more so on my talk page. I note that everything you linked was to user talk space.
  • We tend to disagree on content a lot. That's ok; we've both edited with lots of people that disagree with us. The Ghouta page was a slog, but we both walked away from it more experience, while editors with deeper personal POVs (on both sides of the issue) drew indefs and topic bans.
  • In that context, it is frustrating when you seem unwilling to address quite obvious source reliability and behavioral POV issues, if they happen to support the Assad/Russian POV. On Khan Shakyhun, I shouldn't need to be telling you that a blog isn't an acceptable source for an exceptional claim, and you similarly would be within your rights to be annoyed if I inserted content sourced to a similar-quality blog that presented an American POV. VQuakr (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop stalking

I'm well aware you disagree with my editing, but DO NOT show one more evidence of stalking my edits. There is no way you just happened to stumble on a long abandoned draft page I edited. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting take. No, I don't "disagree" with your editing; your pattern of editing is disruptive. You may want to carefully review WP:NPA before repeating such an accusation. I could of course ask how you "stumbled" on that editors user subpage as well. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh contrare, it is you who is disruptive. I work from bot generated lists, you work from my edit list. Now stop stalking my edits already. Legacypac (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirection of new pages

Please explain why the new pages for Bamarren Institute for State Intelligence, Pythas Lok, Barkan Lokar and Palandine were redirected to the page A Stitch in Time (Novel). These are characters for this novel, and no references can be given until the novel is read. Why did you take it upon yourself to delete these pages instead of consulting me on my talkpage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ayonpradhan: articles for fictional characters are routinely redirected to the media in which they appear (or an article of the format "list of XX characters"), except for unusual cases in which the characters independently meet the notability guideline and also have so much independent, verifiable content written about them that it would be impractical to cover it all in a list. Re "consulting" you, the editor that creates and article does not possess ownership of it. VQuakr (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon @ PNCA Library (April 29, 2017)

You are invited to the upcoming Art+Feminism edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (PNCA) Library at 511 NW Broadway on Saturday, April 29, 2017, from 11am to 4pm. For more information, visit the Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Susan Stamper Brown

VQuakr: In reference to discussion for deletion of Susan Stamper Brown page please reference Wiki's[1] definition of journalist: "Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists (journalists who use the medium of photography)." Wikimeeeeeee (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I replied with some links on your talk page. VQuakr (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

Article Creation

I am a frequent lurker, HTML proficient (now) user who has read a lot into wiki politics..

I am also (as per my nod to the last true Herzog, Chaim) a fervent Zionist. I believe longtime Israeli President Shimon Peres' family, notably Chemi and Yoni, are not recognized as they should be. How can I ensure adding articles for them is as apolitical as possible?

Thanks Chaimhailie (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chaimhailie: welcome! Aside from reviewing the advice at your first article and our policy on keeping a neutral point of view, I suggest making use of the article creation wizard and/or articles for creation. The latter will provide a built-in review of the draft before the article is moved to mainspace.
More generally, the advice on writing apolitically is rather intuitive. Write about the people (don't promote a viewpoint), use quality sources, and make sure that any contentious content is particularly well-sourced. If you create a draft, I can review it for you and let you know if I see anything more specific. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nascent state (chemistry)

Why was the redirect removed? At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Nascent_hydrogen we all agree that what was there before was rubbish. 158.93.6.11 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The conversation there doesn't say what you say it does. In any case, get consensus on the article talk page first. VQuakr (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Read the discussion over there. Have you read it at all? User:Smokefoot says it's rubbish and shortened nascent hydrogen considerably. [2] User:Project Osprey and User:EdChem concur. Please don't revert reflexively. The article quotes literature from nearly 100 years ago, no one believes that any longer. 158.93.6.11 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not engage in discussion instead of mindless templating? Can you do that? 158.93.6.11 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course. If you think a page should be redirected or merged, start a discussion on the talk page and get consensus. VQuakr (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about. The consensus is right there, can't you see? These people are all experienced chemists. 158.93.6.11 (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
We have articles on flat earth and lysenkoism. If you don't think the current state of the article reflects modern scientific consensus fix it. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I have done. No one believes in the "nascent state" any longer, just look at what story nascent hydrogen tells. The concept of the "nascent state" is encountered in ancient chemistry texts and very bad contemporary ones. The redirect is really the best option here. 158.93.6.11 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk page; get consensus there. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Can I talk to someone with a clue? 158.93.6.11 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That reference of yours wasn't the greatest. Today's thinking (as well as the history of the concept) is reflected in the Jensen article. 158.93.6.11 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
It was from 1942... should probably be viewed from that perspective. That makes it historical, not "not the greatest". Yes, looks like we edit-conflicted adding the 1990 Jensen review to the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation

This was a 1RR violation in a page that is related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. Please be more careful going forward. ~ Rob13Talk 06:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: roger wilco, thanks for the notification. I don't think this had come up for me before, so just to clarify - relation to Syria is per Common Sense, not whether there is a general sanctions notice on the talk page at the time? VQuakr (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Correct. It applies to the whole topic area. The notice on the talk page is just a courtesy. ~ Rob13Talk 07:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. VQuakr (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

VisualEditor
Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

Screenshot showing some changes to an article. Most changes are highlighted with text formatting.
When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".

In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Toggle button showing visual and wikitext options; visual option is selected.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

Screenshot showing the same changes, in the two-column wikitext diff display.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures to enable the ⧼Visualeditor-preference-newwikitexteditor-label⧽.

A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. [3]

The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. [4]

Other changes:

  • You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this. [5]
  • The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow. [6]
  • The Categories item has been moved to the top of the Page options menu (from clicking on the "hamburger" icon) for quicker access. [7] There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there. [8]
  • You can now create <chem> tags (sometimes used as <ce>) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor. [9]
  • Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed. [10]
  • The Special character menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) . The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt. [11]
  • A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed. The team are sorry for the disruption. [12]
  • There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations: Control+Shift+K on a PC, or Command+Shift+K on a Mac. It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is Control+K on a PC or Command+K on a Mac. [13]

Future changes

  • The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of <ref> tags and other types of wikitext syntax. You will be able to turn it on and off. It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017. [14]
  • The kind of button used to Show preview, Show changes, and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI. The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read. The labels will remain the same. You can test the new button by editing a page and adding &ooui=1 to the end of the URL, like this: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1 The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes. [15]
  • The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors. See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use. [16]

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Meetup Invitation

You are invited to the upcoming Asian Pacific American Heritage month edit-athon.

This will be held on the first floor of the Knight library at the University of Oregon.

For more information please see: Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA, a Facebook event link is also available on the Meetup page.

  • Date: Friday, May 26, 2017
  • Time: 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm
  • Location: Edminston Classroom, Knight Library, Room 144
  • Address:1501 Kincaid Street, Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1299

Hope to see you there!

(This message was sent to WikiProject members via Wikipedia:Meetup/Eugene/WikiAPA/MailingList on 23:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC). To opt-out of future messages please remove your name from the mailing list.)

There is a discussion at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard that may interest you

This message is being sent to let you know that there is a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the article Oath Keepers. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Oath Keepers. You are receiving this notice because you have previously commented at that talk page. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello VQuakr/Archives,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 812 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

Not sure why you reverted, DRN closed earlier because of back and forth by OP, but BLP doesn't let us post these kinds of rumors, especially not based on biased sources, when they have been denied by the organization's founders. I think you should read the DRN discussion in detail before reverting again, and we can discuss it on talk if you have further concerns - I'm not sure why you called a removal "blanking" but I assume it was a mistake. If the DRN is the only issue, I was involved in the discussion and if you'd checked it before reverting, you would have seen that it closed before I made any edits. Seraphim System (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: thanks for pointing out the closure of the DRN. I notice that the DRN closure invites editors to return to the article talk page; that seems a reasonable next step if you still think that section should be removed. Citing BLP on an attributed quote, calling the Anti-Defamation League a biased source, and citing BLP on statements about an organization all seem very dubious to me but again feel free to make your case on the talk page per WP:BRD. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I just posted on talk, it being an attributed quote doesn't make a different for BLP, in this case, where removal would be more appropriate. The ADL is widely regarded as a biased source, as is SPLC. It is a primary opinion, quote farming articles for advocacy opinions is not a good practice. It turns articles into WP:COATRACKS, which is a good description of the current content of Oath Keepers. All the context from news stories about the complexity of the organization and it's ideology has been left out, and only the quotes from SPLC and ADL have been included. There's very little discussion about the organization's libertarian origins or their involvement in the Ron Paul campaign. As far as the statement about terrorism goes - this is a very serious allegation and while the statement is about an organization, the members of that organization are United States veterans and law enforcement. This statement is about them and the organization's founder - and it has been denied by. Seraphim System (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I just replied on the article talk page. You might consider reading WP:CRYBLP, too. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

AfD

VQuakr, thank you for reviewing some of my new articles! I have been doing all I can to add some more pages about cricket. A couple of new pages I edited are under AfD, and I would appreciate it greatly if you can look at them when you have time. Climate7298 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride at PNCA: Tuesday, June 27

You are invited to the upcoming Wiki Loves Pride edit-athon, which will be held at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway) on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, from 5–8pm. For more information, visit the meetup page or Facebook event page.

Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

AN/I

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

...for reviewing Motor planning! --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits

Please stop making disruptive edits.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No diffs? VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Not here. I will provide diffs if I have to report you. All I am asking is to be able to write the article from a Neutral point of view. "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Stop now. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Based on your response, am I to think that you believe disagreement with you comprises "disruption"? VQuakr (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not that we disagree. That's fine. Please note that "Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Just an observation but it is very hard to stop something when all you know is that there are just vague statements like stop being disruptive. If you want someone to stop doing something you should really be more specific about your concerns. ~ GB fan 11:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Erlbaeko, I have a question for you. If someone thought you were being disruptive in the way you are editing an article, would you want them to calmly discuss their concerns with you or drop a generic template that only tells you that someone considers some edits of yours disruptive? ~ GB fan 12:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I think he already knows. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I really don't. You have extensive experience with dispute resolution and we've been able to work together despite despite differences of opinion on content in the past, so I have no idea why you seem to have regressed to attempts at railroading, personal attacks, and threats. VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

World's Lamest Critic ‎

I just became aware of User:World's Lamest Critic. I looked at his edit history from beginning to recently (seeing your interaction with him and so on), and it's obvious he's not a newbie. He reminds me of a certain editor, but I don't have any concrete proof that he is that editor. Just letting you know that if I do get enough evidence on this matter, I will be starting a WP:Sock investigation on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC) ‎

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nation Cion

Thanks for reverting my closure, I didn't even see the second one listed there nor did I check the page history when closing. Easy mistake to make. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: no kidding. Did you see I did the same thing earlier? VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I did once you reverted my close. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Party on. VQuakr (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello VQuakr/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting a close

[17] was out of process. Not only that but only an Admin can overturn a close. See WP:ANRFC for the correct procedure (take it to AN). Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Anyone can review an obviously bad NAC; see WP:NAC for the requirement for such closures to be unambiguous and WP:IAR for the policy on being "out of process". VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about WP:BADNAC. What is so wrong that it requires an IAR reversal instead of taking iy to a Review at AN? Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think the original closure was good, or are you still hung up on the fact that I didn't take it to the Central Bureau of RfC Closure Review Bureaucracy? VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see that my closure was reverted my closure as "supervote" and "obviously bad NAC" . After reexamining the discussion I concluded that the AWB part was indeed wrong. I really don't mind - actually I appreciate it- when people point out my mistakes. However I really believe that civilty and AGF required that you contacted me asking to remove AWB from second statement. Or at least contacting me after doing so-not letting me find it out accidentally. So I would ask you to restore my closure allowing me to fix this part, and AWB can be discussed in another RfC. After all I really don't think that if had been allowed to fix my mistake, it would have still been a bad nac. Best regards. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No, restoring your bad closure so you could self-rv would be a silly waste of time. There are a number of well-thought-out arguments in opposition to the majority there, so it isn't a good candidate for NAC in general. I disagree that anything I did related to RfC was a violation of AGF, but I will be sure to notify you if something similar comes up in the future. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For someone that claims to put so much emphasis on process at MfD you seem to ignore it when it suits you. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

When is suits WP, not me. Invoking IAR once in a blue moon is a far cry from ignoring a stark consensus consistently for months. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page

...to your template-bombing; I seem to have messed up the {{reply to}} on it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Template bombing" is melodramatic. EW notices are a mandatory part of the process. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm, yes. Not unlike the phrase "tag bombing," no? If you have a situatiation where two people each have two reversions, and you chose to template one of them, the process in question appears to be tag-teaming. Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, etc. Pretty hard to take you seriously given your behavior. VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello VQuakr/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

\Flexibility in Flotation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect \Flexibility in Flotation. Since you had some involvement with the \Flexibility in Flotation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack

Making a personal attack against me at ANi is very uncalled for. Please retract. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: that's a serious accusation. Diff? VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That you already forgot or can't identify it shows serious competency issues. [18]. Remove your post now. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Legacypac: accusations about personal behavior require linked diffs per WP:NPA, which is policy. That you think my asking for exactly what is required by policy "shows serious competency issues" is bizarre. What about that diff do you find to be a personal attack? VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
why you need a diff for something you typed 5 min before is hard to understand. Off to ANi than...Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't pointed out a personal attack. Support your claim or strike it. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
there is no need for me to repeat your personal attack. Now in addition, you twice reverted my edit to G13 AND falsely accused me of edit warring. I make one valid improvement without changing the policy, you revert me twice without discussion except to template me, and somehow I'm the edit warrior? You need to take a break and think about how you treat other editors before carrying down this path. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't made a personal attack. Your repeated, unsupported accusations that I have are in violation of policy, and your eagerness to play victim when your behavior is called out is transparent. The proper venue for discussing your proposed change to WP:CSD is WT:CSD. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be WP:UNCIVIL [19]. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't uncivil. You know better, and you are not a victim as much as you'd love to play one. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor you ran across last night

I've blocked this editor as NOTHERE - not for the original research but for twice adding to articles "note: the author of editing this section is under electronic torture". Doug Weller talk 10:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya, I didn't have high hopes that they were going to work out as an editor. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello VQuakr/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi VQuakr, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Heya VQuakr and thank you for the welcome! Would you believe I just noticed it lol (My Wiki "Skills" strike again). I believe it was on Yank Barry's page that you helped provide me with some guidance on the rules and regs of Wiki. Again very much appreciated. I'm looking forward to finishing a part of that conversation I started but haven't had the time to get to it. What a page though!!! Again thanks for the assist there and appreciate the offer of for future help. I may have to take you up on it some time. :) JustAnotherNerdWithWords (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@JustAnotherNerdWithWords: good to hear from you. Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Take your own advice...

First, last, and final warning. Leave me alone. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello VQuakr/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color - Thursday, Oct. 26 at PNCA

Main page: Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Artists of Color

On Thursday, October 26, a Wikipedia edit-a-thon dedicated to artists of color will be held from 4–8pm at the Pacific Northwest College of Art (511 NW Broadway). Learn more at Facebook. Hope to see you there! -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VQuakr. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 21:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whpq (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Max Lloyd-Jones

How do you suggest I dispute a discussion that cited false information as the the reason for the resulting redirect? The use of incorrect information to come to a conclusion voids any decision made.

KenMWannabe (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@KenMWannabe: if there were "substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion", then it is reasonable to open a deletion review at WP:DRV. If you choose to do that, be sure to clearly state what the procedural errors were - they are not obvious to me from looking at the deletion discussion. Don't open a deletion review just because you disagree with the result of the discussion, though - we operate under consensus here. VQuakr (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, VQuakr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello VQuakr/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings, I just wanted you to know that there's a discussion at the Cold War talk page that I have a feeling may interest you. Best, GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello VQuakr/Archives, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VQuakr/Archives/2017&oldid=1149964037"