User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2021
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Editing news 2021 #1
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Reply tool
The Reply tool is available at most other Wikipedias.
- The Reply tool has been deployed as an opt-out preference to all editors at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
- It is also available as a Beta Feature at almost all Wikipedias except for the English, Russian, and German-language Wikipedias. If it is not available at your wiki, you can request it by following these simple instructions.
Research notes:
- As of January 2021, more than 3,500 editors have used the Reply tool to post about 70,000 comments.
- There is preliminary data from the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedia on the Reply tool. Junior Contributors who use the Reply tool are more likely to publish the comments that they start writing than those who use full-page wikitext editing.[1]
- The Editing and Parsing teams have significantly reduced the number of edits that affect other parts of the page. About 0.3% of edits did this during the last month.[2] Some of the remaining changes are automatic corrections for Special:LintErrors.
A large A/B test will start soon.[3] This is part of the process to offer the Reply tool to everyone. During this test, half of all editors at 24 Wikipedias (not including the English Wikipedia) will have the Reply tool automatically enabled, and half will not. Editors at those Wikipeedias can still turn it on or off for their own accounts in Special:Preferences.
New discussion tool
The new tool for starting new discussions (new sections) will join the Discussion tools in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures at the end of January. You can try the tool for yourself.[4] You can leave feedback in this thread or on the talk page.
Next: Notifications
During Talk pages consultation 2019, editors said that it should be easier to know about new activity in conversations they are interested in. The Notifications project is just beginning. What would help you become aware of new comments? What's working with the current system? Which pages at your wiki should the team look at? Please post your advice at mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications.
–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Jake Angeli. Thank you. diff Walrus Ji (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Walrus Ji: ok, I'll bite. Where's the AGF violation in that diff? VQuakr (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A cup of encyclopedia fuel to help you help other people in editing
|
Thanks for pointing out that WP:BOLD applied to an edit I requested comment on! 4D4850 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC) |
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
 |
Writing Black History of the Pacific Northwest into Wikipedia - Editathon 2021
|
Cascadia Wikimedians placed this banner at 03:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC) by using the Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Participants list.To subscribe to or unsubscribe from messages from Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland, please add or remove your name here.
Can you explain this paid editing issue?
Hi VQuakr I'm a wiki newbie interested in WikiMed, especially the Global Burden of Disease related pages. I saw you were involved [a big debate] around this topic in 2017 that had to do with Vipuls paid editing and a user named Riceissa who ended up being [[5]].
I'm hoping you can answer some questions for me so I can learn a little more before I contribute?
For example, you said: “The rest of this user’s (and the rest of the ring’s) user space needs to be reviewed”. What actions were taken around this? And what was your primary concern?
Thanks!
--Whiskiz (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Whiskiz: Welcome! I do not recall being particularly pivotal to that situation but sure, ask away. FYI the policy on paid editing is WP:PAID. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Editing news 2021 #2
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter
Earlier this year, the Editing team ran a large study of the Reply Tool. The main goal was to find out whether the Reply Tool helped newer editors communicate on wiki. The second goal was to see whether the comments that newer editors made using the tool needed to be reverted more frequently than comments newer editors made with the existing wikitext page editor.
The key results were:
- Newer editors who had automatic ("default on") access to the Reply tool were more likely to post a comment on a talk page.
- The comments that newer editors made with the Reply Tool were also less likely to be reverted than the comments that newer editors made with page editing.
These results give the Editing team confidence that the tool is helpful.
Looking ahead
The team is planning to make the Reply tool available to everyone as an opt-out preference in the coming months. This has already happened at the Arabic, Czech, and Hungarian Wikipedias.
The next step is to resolve a technical challenge. Then, they will deploy the Reply tool first to the Wikipedias that participated in the study. After that, they will deploy it, in stages, to the other Wikipedias and all WMF-hosted wikis.
You can turn on "Discussion Tools" in Beta Features now. After you get the Reply tool, you can change your preferences at any time in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.
00:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
What happened
...here [6]; isn't the sock claim premature, as yet? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing: a quite obvious duck. If you disagree and restore the comment, I'm certainly not going to EW over it, but they've shown no hesitation to keep creating accounts so WP:DENY is the best approach. VQuakr (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I ain't restorin' nothin'. :) Curious to see how this one ends. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
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. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Since I didn't see this posted on either of our talk pages, this is to let you know that 198.53.108.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added a discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the GAO discussion on Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Not sure if you drink, but I feel like a beer is needed after that ordeal. Thanks for providing your explanations that were much better worded than my responses. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC) |
- I enjoy an adult beverage from time to time. There were a lot more electrons expended than necessary, but ultimately we got some improvements into the article as a result so it seems like a win overall. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello VQuakr/Archives,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Deleting posts
I don't think you should be deleting other users' posts on talk pages as you did here however much you don't like them. Certainly, there are policy reasons for deletion such as copyvio and outing. Posts that are entirely off-topic are frequently removed also. But this post was part of a discussion that was on the topic of improving the artticle not an entirely new thread. Sure, it had drifted off into discussing editors rather than issues, but it was replying to a perceived slight by you. I don't think it had reached the point where it needed to be removed, and even if it did, the whole thread from your initial comment should have been removed, and by someone not involved in the exchange, not you. SpinningSpark 22:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: removing personal attacks is specifically listed in WP:TPO. I only removed the personal attack. VQuakr (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, you didn't only remove the personal attack. They opened with "Everything I've written follows the discussion to this point", that is, they were defending your criticism of their list of sources. In a nutshell, their "personal attack" amounts to accusing you of a personal attack by your "googling" comment. You accused them of just dumping a google search on the page. While that mighht be true, the editor's post was a denial of this, and in any case it does not advance the discussion one way or another to make that accusation. Your post was about as bad as theirs in this respect. TPO Says Everything I've written follows the discussion to this point. On personal attacks, TPO says This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Imo, this does not even rise to the level of invective. Please restore that post, the only thing deleting it is going to achieve is to make the conversation even more bad tempered. And as I already said, as an involved party, you are not best placed to be doing the removing. SpinningSpark 22:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: He's already replied with a toned down version; no further action from either of us is needed on this. He explicitly stated I was acting in bad faith; the personal attack was unambiguous. I don't appreciate your enabling or your false equivalency. I said the links they provided were indiscriminate (a comment on the content, not the editor); nothing I said implied or stated anything about copy/paste or their intentions. There is no requirement for me to be uninvolved; I'm not closing a RfC or something here. VQuakr (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they meant copy/paste a google search onto the talk page. That is precisely what you accused them of. There's no requirement for you to be uninvolved but that doesn't stop it being a bad decision. SpinningSpark 23:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: no, that's not what I "accused" them of, "precisely" or otherwise. My comment was regarding the sources being indiscriminate; nothing was said or inferred against them. You're so far off base here I can't help but wonder, are we talking about the same diff!? It's linked in this post. VQuakr (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure they meant copy/paste a google search onto the talk page. That is precisely what you accused them of. There's no requirement for you to be uninvolved but that doesn't stop it being a bad decision. SpinningSpark 23:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: He's already replied with a toned down version; no further action from either of us is needed on this. He explicitly stated I was acting in bad faith; the personal attack was unambiguous. I don't appreciate your enabling or your false equivalency. I said the links they provided were indiscriminate (a comment on the content, not the editor); nothing I said implied or stated anything about copy/paste or their intentions. There is no requirement for me to be uninvolved; I'm not closing a RfC or something here. VQuakr (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- No, you didn't only remove the personal attack. They opened with "Everything I've written follows the discussion to this point", that is, they were defending your criticism of their list of sources. In a nutshell, their "personal attack" amounts to accusing you of a personal attack by your "googling" comment. You accused them of just dumping a google search on the page. While that mighht be true, the editor's post was a denial of this, and in any case it does not advance the discussion one way or another to make that accusation. Your post was about as bad as theirs in this respect. TPO Says Everything I've written follows the discussion to this point. On personal attacks, TPO says This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Imo, this does not even rise to the level of invective. Please restore that post, the only thing deleting it is going to achieve is to make the conversation even more bad tempered. And as I already said, as an involved party, you are not best placed to be doing the removing. SpinningSpark 22:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
November 2021 backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
GAR
Never news one wants to hear, but I've put an article you are credited for up for Good Article Review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant/1. It has changed a lot over the years and will need some TLC if it is to remain a GA. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- @CaptainEek: can't say I disagree; thanks for the heads up! VQuakr (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Life (2017 film)
What is so wrong with including detail in the plot summary for the movie Life? --47.189.53.93 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- @47.189.53.93: Way too long; plot summaries tent to bloat over time. Suggest working on other parts of the article instead. See WP:PLOTSUM. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello, VQuakr,
Just a reminder, please post a talk page notice to the page creator when you tag a page for any type of deletion. You are using Twinkle but perhaps you need to change your Preferences so that "Notify page creator" box is checked along with ALL types of CSD criteria. I think the default is that only boxes for the most used criteria, like A7 and G11, are checked. With CSD G4, you should be able to leave a link to the AFD discussion so the page creator can understand why the article they created has been deleted.
Thank you for all of the work you do and for spotting these deleted article recreations. Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Liz: thank you for the reminder! I had consciously elected not to warn the poster since G4 isn't a creator-fixable problem and they had just received a PROD notification, but I see that practice is not longer encouraged per WP:CSD so I can avoid repeating it. Thanks again! VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Please could you explain (in the article talk) the reason for your revert? 85.193.252.19 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Answered on talk, though I think the edit summary was pretty self-explanatory. VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Your (reverted) removal of talk page discussion.
I have dropped you an invite on the page to invite you to comment. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Springnuts: thanks for the invite. I'm not interested in engaging in an editor behavior discussion in article talk space, but I'm not going to remove a section that now has additional replies besides those of myself and the tendentious editor, either. VQuakr (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Removal of material from article talk pages.
Good afternoon VQuakr, and thank you for your contributions to the Encyclopedia. I notice that you have; not often, but on a number of occasions; removed sections of an article talk page. No doubt you felt there was good reason to do so but it will be helpful if you study the policy here WP:TPO - it includes a helpful set of guidelines explaining the very limited occasions when it may be appropriate to go outside the basic rule which is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. With friendly good wishes, Springnuts (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
ANI vs AE
Hey VQuakr,
Just as a friendly tip, I think it would have been better to bring that COVID TBAN discussion to WP:AE instead of WP:ANI. There are a few differences which make AE more preferable:
- Word limits, which (when actually followed) can constrict a discussion and make it not descend into content dispute.
- Statements are split up by user. This tends to prevent some back and forth bickering. It doesn't eliminate it, but it actually helps some, magically.
- It actually requires you to organize your thoughts etc. and make a compelling case with Diffs.
- Almost always an action/non-action declared. There's a resolution. Whereas ANI threads can get archived after 7 days of inactivity, AE threads are almost ALWAYS resolved before archiving.
- There's fewer threads at any given time, so the thread gets some admin attention.
- When you have Discretionary Sanctions in place, it has a lower burden of proof of disruption.
Anyway, if that ANI thread is unsuccesful (which I fear it may be), then I would take this to AE. And when you do so, I would focus on specific actionable diffs which show the TE problem. Stick precisely to the WP:TE list, and show how the user meets all the qualifications. Waxing about content dispute or theoretical issues with their belief system often doesn't work. Even if that's a serious issue, it makes admins mad when content disputes show up at these places.
I'm probably telling you lots of stuff you already know, just trying to help you with efficiency and achieving goals of actually sanctioning disruptive editors :)
Best,
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: thanks for the feedback. I'll leave the ANI thread alone since it has replies and we'll see where we're at in a week or so. Assuming no new material from the POV warrior, immediately reposting at a different board seems forum-shoppy; but I'll definitely use this in the future if the need arises. I think I've managed to avoid WP:AE so far, so it's not a default drama board location for me. Someone who is a subject-matter expert maybe should change the instruction at WP:AE that says, "Please use this page only to...request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction...", because I feel like it conflicts with the feedback you provided above (or at least is confusing enough to stymie someone like me). VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah no I think 100% you should leave the ANI thread intact. It may actually work. Just describing why it hasn't sometimes in the past! Yeah, AE is very confusing and often misunderstood. I'm just describing based on the several other discussions we've had there about POV warriors. But I think you were absolutely right to bring that user up for a TBAN. I was considering it myself
- — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- And now you know why I recommended not using ANI. :) I think in general it would be a bad idea to take this any further, to WP:AE, for example. I think from that thread, the community sentiment just isn't there (even if some of the respondents are POV pro-leak people). Regardless of who responded etc, Admins rarely like to overturn community sentiment. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)