User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2015

Global warming controversy

Hi VQuakr

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

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

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

Many thanks!

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

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

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

Disruptive Editing

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

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

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

Trying to create a discussion on reviving the criticism section on Debito's Wikipage

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

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

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lazord00d

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

3d model revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup

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

New article

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

Good Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

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

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

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

Recent improvements

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

• starts a new task, like opening the ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽ dialog:  blue ,
• takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation:  green ,
• might remove or lose your work, like removing a link:  red , or
• is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window:  gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

Looking ahead

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill features for citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Please help complete translations of the user guide for users who speak your language.
• Join the weekly bug triage meetings beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. Contact James F. for more information.
• Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 19:00 UTC.

Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Translations are available through Meta. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Asking for your opinion

Hi VQuakr,

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

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

On List of Wikipedia controversies by User:Gamaliel (See: [1])

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

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

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

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)

You are invited!

• Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm

  Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.

Thanks,

Another Believer

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

Re; Debito Arudou page

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

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

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

Debito page

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

Chandler Bats Page Edits

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

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

VisualEditor News #2—2015

Did you know?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent improvements

VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and network speed by almost 40%.

The Editing team is slowly adding auto-fill features for citations. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.

Citoid requires good TemplateData for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

The special character inserter has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the Phase 5 list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh.

Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use input method editors ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.

The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the "packed" mode in image galleries. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.

You can now drag and drop categories to re-arrange their order of appearance ​on the page.

The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.

Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.

Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead (T90734).

Looking ahead

The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted at mediawiki.org.

The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check this list to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. Contact us to get an account if you want to help!
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite 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!

-Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The Lipstick lesbian and Butch and femme articles

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

HI VQuakr: Quick question about archiving Talk Page

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

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

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

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

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

New Pages Patrol

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

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

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

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

Edit regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal

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

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

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

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

deOrphaning script

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

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

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

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

That's what I tried to do...

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

Sockpuppet investigation

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

AfD Shooting of Meagan Hockaday

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

WordSeventeen

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

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

VisualEditor News #3—2015

Did you know?

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

The link tool has been re-designed:

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

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

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

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

Recent improvements

Auto-fill features for citations are available at a few Wikipedias through the citoid service. Citoid takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. If Citoid is enabled on your wiki, then the design of the citation workflow changed during May. All citations are now created inside a single tool. Inside that tool, choose the tab you want (⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-auto⧽, ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-manual⧽, or ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-reuse⧽). The cite button is now labeled with the word "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" rather than a book icon, and the autofill citation dialog now has a more meaningful label, "⧼Citoid-citeFromIDDialog-lookup-button⧽", for the submit button.

The link tool has been redesigned based on feedback from Wikipedia editors and user testing. It now has two separate sections: one for links to articles and one for external links. When you select a link, its pop-up context menu shows the name of the linked page, a thumbnail image from the linked page, Wikidata's description, and/or appropriate icons for disambiguation pages, redirect pages and empty pages. Search results have been reduced to the first five pages. Several bugs were fixed, including a dark highlight that appeared over the first match in the link inspector (T98085).  

The special character inserter in VisualEditor now uses the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki can also create a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Please read the instructions for customizing the list at mediawiki.org. Also, there is now a tooltip to describing each character in the special character inserter (T70425).

Several improvements have been made to templates. When you search for a template to insert, the list of results now contains descriptions of the templates. The parameter list inside the template dialog now remains open after inserting a parameter from the list, so that users don’t need to click on "⧼visualeditor-dialog-transclusion-add-param⧽" each time they want to add another parameter (T95696). The team added a new property for TemplateData, "Example", for template parameters. This optional, translatable property will show up when there is text describing how to use that parameter (T53049).

The design of the main toolbar and several other elements have changed slightly, to be consistent with the MediaWiki theme. In the Vector skin, individual items in the menu are separated visually by pale gray bars. Buttons and menus on the toolbar can now contain both an icon and a text label, rather than just one or the other. This new design feature is being used for the cite button on wikis where the Citoid service is enabled.

The team has released a long-desired improvement to the handling of non-existent images. If a non-existent image is linked in an article, then it is now visible in VisualEditor and can be selected, edited, replaced, or removed.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug.
• If your Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other community wants to have VisualEditor made available by default to contributors, then please contact James Forrester.
• If you would like to request the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite 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! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: FYI

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

Mediation for Ghouta chemical attack

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

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

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

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

McKinney, Texas pool incident not notable?

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

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

from the Help page for Wikipedia:NEVENT:

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

From the BBC:

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

From the Australian Broadcasting Corp:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Primary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spin off article

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

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

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

antisemitism

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

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

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

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

Homeopathy

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

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

Not MLM

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

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

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

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

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

Help in AfC

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for reviewig the article and doing a tedious work of improving it. Prymshbmg (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

swan design

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

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

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

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

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

Re re: FRINGE

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

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

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

DisuseKid and Charleston

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

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

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

Just a heads-up

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

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

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

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

James Eagan Holmes

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

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

Revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

VisualEditor News #4—2015

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

Did you know?

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

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

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

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

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

Wikimania

The team attended Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City. There they participated in the Hackathon and met with individuals and groups of users. They also made several presentations about VisualEditor and the future of editing.

Following Wikimania, we announced winners for the VisualEditor 2015 Translathon. Our thanks and congratulations to users Halan-tul, Renessaince, जनक राज भट्ट (Janak Bhatta), Vahe Gharakhanyan, Warrakkk, and Eduardogobi.

For interface messages (translated at translatewiki.net), we saw the initiative affecting 42 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 56.5% before the translathon, and 78.2% after (+21.7%). In particular, Sakha improved from 12.2% to 94.2%; Brazilian Portuguese went from 50.6% to 100%; Taraškievica went from 44.9% to 85.3%; Doteli went from 1.3% to 41.2%. Also, while 1.7% of the messages were outdated across all languages before the translathon, the percentage dropped to 0.8% afterwards (-0.9%).

For documentation messages (on mediawiki.org), we saw the initiative affecting 24 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 26.6% before translathon, and 46.9% after (+20.3%).  There were particularly notable achievements for three languages. Armenian improved from 1% to 99%; Swedish, from 21% to 99%, and Brazilian Portuguese, from 34% to 83%. Outdated translations across all languages were reduced from 8.4% before translathon to 4.8% afterwards (-3.6%).

We published some graphs showing the effect of the event on the Translathon page. Thank you to the translators for participating and the translatewiki.net staff for facilitating this initiative.

Recent improvements

Auto-fill features for citations can be enabled on each Wikipedia. The tool uses the citoid service to convert a URL or DOI into a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. You can see an animated GIF of the quick, simple process at mediawiki.org. So far, about a dozen Wikipedias have enabled the auto-citation tool. To enable it for your wiki, follow the instructions at mediawiki.org.

Your wiki can customize the first section of the special character inserter in VisualEditor. Please follow the instructions at mediawiki.org to put the characters you want at the top. 

In other changes, if you need to fill in a CAPTCHA and get it wrong, then you can click to get a new one to complete. VisualEditor can now display and edit Vega-based graphs. If you use the Monobook skin, VisualEditor's appearance is now more consistent with other software.  

Future changes

The team will be changing the appearance of selected links inside VisualEditor. The purpose is to make it easy to see whether your cursor is inside or outside the link. When you select a link, the link label (the words shown on the page) will be enclosed in a faint box. If you place your cursor inside the box, then your changes to the link label will be part of the link. If you place your cursor outside the box, then it will not. This will make it easy to know when new characters will be added to the link and when they will not.

On the English Wikipedia, 10% of newly created accounts are now offered both the visual and the wikitext editors. A recent controlled trial showed no significant difference in survival or productivity for new users in the short term. New users with access to VisualEditor were very slightly less likely to produce results that needed reverting. You can learn more about this by watching a video of the July 2015 Wikimedia Research Showcase. The proportion of new accounts with access to both editing environments will be gradually increased over time. Eventually all new users have the choice between the two editing environments.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help.
• If your wiki would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace, you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.
• Please file requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the styling menu in Phabricator.
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
• The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, usually on Tuesdays at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q1 blocker, though. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the main VisualEditor project with the bug.

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre directly, so that she can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

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

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

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

Concerning Eliot Higgins page and alleged missile taking down

I apologize for using the "minor edit" check box for adding the word "alleged".

Here is the most recent news I have found:

(CNN)It's been nearly one year since 298 people were killed after a commercial passenger plane broke up over the Ukraine.

U.S. officials concluded Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was struck by a missile and shot out of the sky. A final report from investigators has yet to be released but CNN has learned new details from the draft investigative report for the July 17, 2014 incident.

Dutch accident investigators say that evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible for shooting down MH-17, according to a source who has seen the report.

According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory.

The Malaysian Airlines flight went down in the Donetsk area of Ukraine. According to two sources with knowledge of the investigation, a draft of an investigative report authored by the Dutch Safety Board, the lead agency in the investigation, has been distributed for review to numerous agencies around the world including the National Transportation Safety Board, Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing.

The draft investigative report is several hundred pages long.

---

Please notice that the above report is not specifically sourced. Also, there is no reference supplied on the Eliot Higgins page, as there cannot be a sourced reference until the Dutch Safety Board report is issued. That was the reason I added the word "alleged". When a sourced reference is available, then it would become the published conclusion of a reputable body.

Quoting from the Wikipedia page for MH-17: "The cause of the crash has not yet been determined by the official investigation, which is being carried out by the Dutch Safety Board."

The relevant sentence on the Eliot Higgins page is: "Bellingcat has suggested the anti-aircraft missile that hit the plane was fired by a Russian unit, the 53rd Buk brigade, based in the city of Kursk."

---

I think the article is more accurate with that word "alleged" where I had placed it.

I would appreciate your guidance in this matter. Thanks, John Tinker (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)johntinker

No alternate theories to a missile strike have any credence. There is a minority opinion that the entity that launched the missile could have been someone other than separatists the word "alleged" is unnecessary in this context. VQuakr (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read reports that it was not a missile at all, but rather MH-17 was shot down by cannon fire from one or more an aircraft. Since the event, I have read a number of such "alternative theories", which seemed to me to be credible. So this is why I think including the word "alleged" is the more appropriate wording of the sentence. I was simply seeking the objective statement which does not jump to a conclusion ahead of the delivery of the official Dutch report. Objectively, Higgins is alleging that it was a missile. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But Wikipedia should not state as a fact that which is not known to be a fact, in my opinion. John Tinker (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)johntinker

Neither of those sources are remotely reliable. The only ones still spouting the air-to-air cannon nonsense is the woo crowd. VQuakr (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised, then, that the preliminary Dutch report refrains from stating plainly that it was a missile. John Tinker (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)johntinker

I again edited the page in question to say that the conclusion that it was a missile comes from Bellingcat. This seems to me to be the most neutral way to put it, and does not employ the word "alleged", which suggests greater uncertainty. Hopefully this expresses the facts as they are known without offending either Bellingcat or that (small) fraction of the "woo crowd" who might possibly know more about the situation than we do. As it is a completely factual, non-speculative and neutral POV sentence the way I have written it, I respectfully request that that it not be reverted. John Tinker (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)johntinker

Again, no credible narrative exists that does not involve a missile. Crediting this only to Bellingcat is silly, since they are not the only (or even the first) to draw this conclusion. Please consider taking this to the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience about this. I see your point. John Tinker (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)johntinker

References

COI on 2600hz

Hi there, I noted your comments on the talk page for 2600hz and also your comments on my talk page. I thought I was being pretty neutral with my edits. Our project really is open-source, and I really don't work in marketing, and I really don't "benefit" from having accurate information and links/references in the 2600hz page.

I've been attempting to add content to the page that's relevant and neutral. You've cited in a conversation with Rachel2600hz (who doesn't work here) that the page was out of date, which she responded to. Then you nominated the page for deletion, because it lacked reliable references (which I'm trying to add). I'm trying to make the page better and solve your complaints about it.

Perhaps you could provide me better guidance on how to do this instead of citing me for violating the terms. What would you like to see here? I'm happy to help, and being honest, not trolling, and not sure what you want here. I don't think the article should be deleted, though. There's a very active community around it (see Google Groups) and a lot of people use and like the software, and it's free.

Let me know. I'd like to see the page saved. --Darren Schreiber (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. 05:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability hand-coding form posted

Hi, VQuakr, I've posted a screenshot of the hand-coding form for classifying notability on the hand-coding recruitment page. Thanks, Bluma.Gelley (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 13:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Patroller userright?

Actually the idea is nice, nevertheless, hatcollecting will be a problem. I've another idea, restricting users with less than 500 edits and less than 1 month old account to view Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed will do the same work without the need of creating new flag. And I feel such a PERM will frequently get backlogged and will need more admins attention. Cheers, Jim Carter 07:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think, Jim, that you need to get up to speed on the many discussions that are taking place in parallel in various venues right now. Your opinion there would be most welcome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

badger?

Hey, this is the second time you are addressing me with "badger", and I don't know what problem you have found with this RFC. Anyway, I though that you are more careful about not addressing the contributors instead of their edits! I would be thankful if you could clarify these things for me. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Fish

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For templating a user who has been indef blocked since 25 July 2011. (Don't worry, we all make mistakes...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, good "catch" on the history there. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Starchild project website

Why does everyone think the starchild website is "fringey"? I don't get it. I have not really seen any "fringe" based work in the site. Is it an oversight on my behalf? EBenderednebE (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. Attributing lab results to "anonymous" is certainly a red flag. Reality check: this is not a borderline case; the source you are proposing is not remotely usable. VQuakr (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Oath Keepers

I presume you realise you are at 3RR - and even Trilobitealive, who heavily edited the article, didn't remove 'assault', so I think you really need consensus to delete it again. Doug Weller (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I have no idea who Trilobitealive is or what they have to do with the disputed content. I will reply on the article talk page. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you've made a mistake posting on my talk page - all the content I edited on the Oath Keepers page was cited with articles from mainstream news media or from mainstream books. Uenuku (talk16:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Eurrgh- I don't have time to battle out every minor change I make with you. Wikipedia belongs to those with free time. Uenuku (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's called collaboration. Best of luck. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The sacred way for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The sacred way 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/The sacred way 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. - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Energy Catalyzer

You have been named as a party at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Energy Catalyzer, but don't seem to have been notified, as far as I can determine. Could you let us know whether you intend to participate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops!. Never mind - I've just realised that you added yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Just a reminder, we are waiting for your statement at WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon thank you for the reminder. I just posted a statement. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your improvements to Wikipedia to keep articles in-line with site policy, the community thanks you. — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome. And thank you, — Cirt (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

how is the clock incident even a biography page?

talking about the almost-blanking of the conspiracy theory section of ahmed mohammed clock incident page under the pretense of wp:blp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

All material about living people falls under WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Protecting BLPs

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your important collaborative work at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Darouet (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor update

This note is only delivered to English Wikipedia subscribers of the visual editor's newsletter.

The location of the visual editor's preference has been changed from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences on this wiki. The setting now says Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. This aligns en.wiki with almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta phase” though.

This action has not changed anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab is still after the “Edit source” one. You can learn more at the visual editor’s talk page.

We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case your account no longer has the settings that you want, please accept our apologies and correct it in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thank you for your attention, Elitre (WMF) -16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #5—2015

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

Did you know?

You can use the visual editor on smartphones and tablets.

Click the pencil icon to open the editor for a page. Inside that, use the gear menu in the upper right corner to "Switch to visual editing".

The editing button will remember which editing environment you used last time, and give you the same one next time. The desktop site will be switching to a system similar to this one in the coming months.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs, added new features, and made some small design changes. They post weekly status reports on mediawiki.org. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for languages like Japanese and Arabic, making it easier to edit on mobile devices, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.

Recent improvements

Educational features: The first time you use the visual editor, it now draws your attention to the Link and ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽ tools. When you click on the tools, it explains why you should use them. (T108620) Alongside this, the welcome message for new users has been simplified to make editing more welcoming. (T112354) More in-software educational features are planned.

Links:  It is now easier to understand when you are adding text to a link and when you are typing plain text next to it. (T74108, T91285) The editor now fully supports ISBN, PMID or RFC numbers. (T109498, T110347, T63558)  These "magic links" use a custom link editing tool.

Uploads:  Registered editors can now upload images and other media to Commons while editing. Click the new tab in the "Insert Images and media" tool. You will be guided through the process without having to leave your edit. At the end, the image will be inserted. This tool is limited to one file at a time, owned by the user, and licensed under Commons's standard license. For more complex situations, the tool links to more advanced upload tools. You can also drag the image into the editor. This will be available in the wikitext editor later.

Mobile:  Previously, the visual editor was available on the mobile Wikipedia site only on tablets. Now, editors can use the visual editor on any size of device. (T85630)  Edit conflicts were previously broken on the mobile website. Edit conflicts can now be resolved in both wikitext and visual editors. (T111894) Sometimes templates and similar items could not be deleted on the mobile website. Selecting them caused the on-screen keyboard to hide with some browsers. Now there is a new "Delete" button, so that these things can be removed if the keyboard hides. (T62110) You can also edit table cells in mobile now.

Rich editing tools:  You can now add and edit sheet music in the visual editor. (T112925)  There are separate tabs for advanced options, such as MIDI and Ogg audio files. (T114227 and T113354)  When editing formulæ and other blocks, errors are shown as you edit. It is also possible to edit some types of graphs; adding new ones, and support for new types, will be coming.

On the English Wikipedia, the visual editor is now automatically available to anyone who creates an account. The preference switch was moved to the normal location, under Special:Preferences.

Future changes

You will soon be able to switch from the wikitext to the visual editor after you start editing. (T49779) Previously, you could only switch from the visual editor to the wikitext editor. Bi-directional switching will make possible a single edit tab. (T102398) This project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab, similar to the system already used on the mobile website. The "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. This feedback page uses Flow for discussions.
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help, and report it on Phabricator (Korean - Japanese) or on Wikipedia (Korean - Japanese).
• Local admins can set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki. If you need help, then please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.
• The weekly task triage meetings are open to volunteers. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration, though. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the main VisualEditor project with the bug.

If you can't read this in your favorite 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!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen movement - Section: U.S. government responses

Hi, VQuakr,

I'm new, so please bear with me. When I last undid the edit to the above section, I missed the opportunity to write a comment to explain why I did it. I left message for you on the article's talk page and then decided to watch the "View History" video to see if I could leave a message for you. The sources, Eric Holder and John Carlin, made specific references to either sovereign citizens or those with anti-government views. Would you mind looking at my edits and perhaps paring them down to keep is relevant? I believe that the sovereign citizen topic will continue to receive attention in the current political climate of domestic terrorism, and that this article should reflect that.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for all you do, and for having patience with me. :)

Sarah.stark (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah.stark: thanks for the note, again; welcome! I will have a look at the article talk page at some point to follow up. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User MetlifeWP

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#Gibberish_edits_by_disruptive_but_well_meaning_editor. Thank you. You helped clean up MetLifeWP's nonsense edits, so I thought you might like to comment on this. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

Ya there's no tags for redirects Just wanted to ask the creator why they were making so many seemingly useless ones - Can you enlighten me? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CHEAP. If someone bothered to make it, they probably find it useful. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

These ones are very cheap. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to NPP

Hi,

I remember vaguely discussing some changes to new page patrol with you and others on some public talk page. I am just curious what became of that proposal because I was visiting an experienced editor’s talk page and was surprised to find user:Kudpung reprimanding this user for a wp:NPP infraction and implying that this user was inexperienced and should visit the wp:Teahouse.

I know from experience that some admins cannot tell/won’t take the trouble to check if a user is experienced, but I did not think this particular admin belonged to this group. Could this be a sign that there is just too much pressure and there should be better tools around, or more likely, tools that exist already are not functioning optimally? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, please have the good grace to provide a link to where I am 'reprimanding' an established user. I would certainly not do such a thing unless absolutely necessary and I find the verb 'reprimand' inapropriate unless given in context. The Page Curation suite of tools which I negotiated with the WMF to get made are excellent. The problem is that some people are totally clusess as to their use, or simply refuse to do the tasks required by NPP, and that's why I advocate the introduction of a user right for it. NPP is a far greater responsibility tan vandal patrolling or recent changes but we allow anyone to do it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I agree with Kudpung that it is impossible to have an informed opinion on a specific interaction without looking at it. To my knowledge, the proposal to add a technical barrier to entry into the world of patrolling has stalled (Wikipedia is good at a lot of things; changing is not one of them). There are a great many users that are excellent writers and page creators that are still unqualified to patrol new pages. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't really stalled. I just haven't got round to launching the RfC for it yet. Mainly due to those who promised to extract some stats months ago that we need to back up our argument haven't come up with the goods. I think there is going to be serious support for it from high quarters such as DGG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. FYI, you also have support from hind quarters such as yours truly. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I am the "experienced editor" Ottawahitech was referring to in the first comment he made in this section. See User talk:Everymorning#October 2015. Everymorning (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Everymorning: thanks for the clarification! That specific case seems thoroughly talked-out, but feel free to drop me a message or take a question to WT:NPP if you have questions on how a specific article should be patrolled. Quality is a ongoing process, not a destination. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the new page

Thank you, VQuakr, for moving Alexei Rezepkin to mainspace and fixing it. This Russian archeologist certainly made some interesting discoveries! :) Y-barton (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Y-barton: sure, no problem. Technically you already had put it in mainspace at Y-barton/Alexei Rezepkin, I just fixed the title. Thanks for your thorough and well written new article! VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on the page of City Montessori School

@VQuakr, the content was not intended to be posted as promotional material on the page of City Montessori School. It was intended as a resource in reply to several users' addition of the 'Controversies' section and as such was a clarification issued to remove that content that was intended to malign the reputation of a well-known school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.khanna05 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

autocite

hello just trying to understand.the change that autocross is making. the article has 17 references. but.not.certain why they.are.dropped when autocite is applied Prospectresearch (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Banned editor

a 'banned editor', yes, but a good faith editor , just got a shorter tolerance level for obvious pov pushers and idiots than you. good luck, it seems an awful uphill battle for intelligent people , wikipedia , sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

It goes with the territory of editing in current events (not that I am endorsing your characterization of other editors). But you can't have it both ways: if you want to edit here, you need to do so in a way that does not involve block evasion and remaining unblocked requires, in part, behaving civilly with others even if they irk you from time to time. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert

If he has another run-in again before February 1st I'll revert it again. Thanks :) --RThompson82 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

...or you could discuss on the talk page. Geez. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the kunduz hospital air strike / International humanitarian law

Why do yo remove my text explaining shortly the the relevant parts of the Geneva conventions with the links to the articles in Wikipedia regarding them?Jochum (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. I explained in my edit summary and on the article talk page when I made the revert. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The references to the appropriate documents are there. I am not removing your contribution you are removing mine. I made a contribution to the talk page to that article before I changed anything. You again are changing my contribution without any discussion. For an edit war you need more than one person. Show me an reason why mentioning the content of the Geneva Conventions is wrong. Stop throwing out my text out without prior discussion. Welcome to the WikipediaJochum (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in the notice I sent you, you are edit warring by trying to "force through" an edit by repeating it. Multiple other editors have contested insertion of your analysis into the article. I am not sure why you think I have not edited the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How dare you. I used a secondary source, the most serious secondary source you can find, the commentary by Jean S. PICTET, read up on him. Did you read what I wrote? I must assume that you did not, if you accuse me of not using a secondary source. I give you some time to revert what you did to my argument on the talk page.Jochum (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source does not mention Kunduz. It is not usable for analysis of the Kunduz attack. Read WP:CIVIL please. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source tells that every, and that means every armed conflict falls under GC IV, if that does not include Kunduz, than the USA can not be participant of a armed conflict in Afghanistan and than it could not have attacked the hospital. Your argument with collapsing said use a secondary source and I used a secondary source, so I revert your collapse.Jochum (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are synthesizing the connection yourself. Do not analyze sources this way. Instead use analysis by sources specific to Kunduz (which by definition will be published after the attack). VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet you have not even bothered to read what I wrote. That is the guy who wrote the commentary The man who wrote the rules of war. As the attack has already happened I have a difficulty to understand how we could be more after the attack. And all the same, I do not make a judgement, I talk about what rules apply and that does not change with time.Jochum (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bet all you want. The article you linked was written 15 years ago and is about a commentary written 50 years prior to that. Kunduz occurred this year. Sources about the Kunduz attack will have been written since the attack occurred. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left some time now when I tried to put into the article what the Fourth Geneva Convention says about the attack of a signer nation of the said convention. I am still of the opinion that I am right and you are wrong. Your argument that the secondary source, the original commentary to the 4GC would be too old, is nonsensical. It is exactly what you ask of an legal commentary, original intent with producing the convention. If you find a newer one producing a different view, produce it. The argument that no news article or other secondary source shows that THIS and this only attack on a hospital falls under the 4GC, is again nonsensical. If a renowned secondary source tells, that every armed conflict a signer nation is involved in falls under the 4GC, than every includes this armed conflict.85.246.105.55 (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The commentary to the 4GC was written prior to Kunduz. By definition, it was not written about Kunduz. There has been lots of legal analysis done about the attack, so we will use those. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, if you want to look at the rules, it would be idiotic to talk about rules that are formed after something happened, the rules are set and you judge according to the rules in place when something happens and those rules are in this case written in the 4GC. You seem to be desperate to not talk about the rules. How does anybody plan anything, depends on anything if the rulebook can be changed after the fact.Jochum (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am having trouble parsing this into anything meaningful. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That I do understand. If you do not want to talk about the rules that apply in war and want to make new rules after the fact, fitting to your needs after the fact, I can very well understand that you do not want to talk about the rules of war. That does not change the fact that there are rules in place that MSF should have been able to rely on and the USA military should have operated according to. I well understand that that is quite uncomfortable to contemplate. And that is why you like to censor any mentioning of the rules that apply.Jochum (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am having trouble parsing it because it is badly written not because you have shattered my worldview. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2015 (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 about the topic Talk:Campus sexual assault. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

@TransporterMan: thank you for the ping. I do not think my participation in this one is necessary as my only contribution was reverting a change to the lede that did not summarize content in the body. My concerns, [2], [3] are not really central to the larger dispute and are easily incorporated into any solution. Please feel free to ping me again if you think additional input would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Did you know?

A new, simpler system for editing will offer a single Edit button. Once the page has opened, you can switch back and forth between visual and wikitext editing.

If you prefer having separate edit buttons, then you can set that option in your preferences, either in a pop-up dialog the next time you open the visual editor, or by going to Special:Preferences and choosing the setting that you want:

The current plan is for the default setting to have the Edit button open the editing environment you used most recently.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs and expanded the mathematics formula tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for languages such as Japanese and Arabic, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.

Recent improvements

You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing.

The LaTeX mathematics formula editor has been significantly expanded. (T118616) You can see the formula as you change the LaTeX code. You can click buttons to insert the correct LaTeX code for many symbols.

Future changes

The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab, like the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as a cookie for logged-out users and as an account preference for logged-in editors. Logged-in editors will be able to set a default editor in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences in the drop-down menu about "Editing mode:".

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the following Wikipedias in early 2016: Amharic, Buginese, Min Dong, Cree, Manx, Hakka, Armenian, Georgian, Pontic, Serbo-Croatian, Tigrinya, Mingrelian, Zhuang, and Min Nan. (T116523) Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. The developers would like to know how well it works. Please tell them what kind of computer, web browser, and keyboard you are using.

In 2016, the feedback pages for the visual editor on many Wikipedias will be redirected to mediawiki.org. (T92661)

Testing opportunities

• Please try the new system for the single edit tab on test2.wikipedia.org. You can edit while logged out to see how it works for logged-out editors, or you can create a separate account to be able to set your account's preferences. Please share your thoughts about the single edit tab system at the feedback topic on mediawiki.org or sign up for formal user research (type "single edit tab" in the question about other areas you're interested in). The new system has not been finalized, and your feedback can affect the outcome. The team particularly wants your thoughts about the options in Special:Preferences. The current choices in Special:Preferences are:
  • Remember my last editor,
  • Always give me the visual editor if possible, 
  • Always give me the source editor, and 
  • Show me both editor tabs.  (This is the current state for people using the visual editor. None of these options will be visible if you have disabled the visual editor in your preferences at that wiki.)
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help, and report it on Phabricator (Korean - Japanese) or on Wikipedia (Korean - Japanese).

If you aren't reading this in your favorite 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!

Whatamidoing (WMF), 00:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)