User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2012

2nd AFD for Brent M. Buckley

Hi! You had nominated the Brent M. Buckley for deletion, and the AFD was closed with no cconsensus, so I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that I have started a second AFD, in case you wanted to comment there. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks, I don't get very many of those!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi VQuakr,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the cup of coffee - nice to see you noticed my absence which was necessitated by some personal commitments. Hope I'll be able to continue contributing for a while, at least :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Alejandro Rodriguez article

Hi, if you'd like to work with the Rodriguez article from here, please do.

I've notified some of his professional colleagues in child psychiatry and have neither the time nor the energy to shepherd this base article to completion, but I think there ought to be one because of his contributions and his place in the history of child psychiatry right after Leo Kanner and Leon Eisenberg.

I do think that the designation ought to be "Alejandro Rodriguez (child psychiatrist)" rather than "Alejandro Rodriguez (psychiatrist)" - but I can leave this to winds of fate.

I think from a deletion standpoint it seems pretty solid; the reference to the date/time of a memorial service probably distracted the nominator from looking at the other content. Generally biographical article titles should contain as few modifiers as possible, but feel free to create a redirect at Alejandro Rodriguez (child psychiatrist) to point to the article (unless of course there is another notable psychiatrist out there that could be confused with the subject of the article at Alejandro Rodriguez (psychiatrist). It is would be nice to include secondary sources that are not obituaries; if you are aware of any let me know and I can add them. VQuakr (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do; I appreciate your enthusiasm. VQuakr (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping by...

... to see how you are. You have not been active lately? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I have been busy in real life and have not had much time for here, but I am still around and doing well. How are you? VQuakr (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying hard not to lose faith. It is good to hear you are doing well. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are frustrated. Is it because of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Siderius? VQuakr (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ray Siderius was a big disappointment and a huge waste of time, but what worries me most is the zeal with which wikipedians pursue deletions. Take a look at my talk page of today: THREE deletion notices for the same article, all delivered within minutes of my firsar edit (that was cut short as a resulg- but what's new)! I just find I cannot make any positive productive contributions. I worry about others who may be less resilient than me - who simply walk away from this hostile environment. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The new page patrol system (which was put into place due to some highly publicized hoax biographical articles persisting on Wikipedia for years before being caught) draws attention to newly created articles. Improvements to this system which might help to address the "rush to delete" portion of your concerns are in the planning phase at WP:NPT. Biographies of living persons and articles about companies tend to get the heaviest scrutiny. Looking at the history, it would appear that the first two notifications happened more or less simultaneously (an edit conflict), while the third came along a moment later (by an editor that incorrectly believed the article met the criteria for a speedy deletion. Incidentally, WP:BLP1E does apply here and in my opinion this is a good candidate for deletion on those grounds. Maybe the information could be added to Virginity test instead? WP:BLP still applies there for any information about a person, but that page absolutely needs work and I cannot imagine anyone would object to information about the Egypt situation there.

You can remove those notifications from your talk page if you want, by the way. There is no requirement for them to stay up forever. I would be happy to set up an auto-archival bot on your talk page if you desired. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and edits you made to my first page "Mori Shigeaki". Very prompt and friendly! Thanks. Max Hiroshima 13:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

please check edits

I am not sure if this is the way to contact you.

Please check he recent addition of citations to the article Emergency Infant Services. I hope the four additional citations are enough to remove the flag concerning he lack up sufficiant citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainmakerUSA (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a pass at cleaning it up and removed the tag. Note that it is often a challenge when writing about organizations to maintain an encyclopedic tone; this article in its current state reads more like the home page for the organization might. Thanks for adding more secondary sources! VQuakr (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words of welcome!

Hey VQuakr, thanks for checking up on the article I posted yesterday, and thank you for making me feel like a welcome part of the wikipedia family! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monosugoihikari (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Any time! VQuakr (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage newsletter

Hey all!

Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).

In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!

Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough

You're right, I was very fed up after dealing with another user and Saccyind was practically his clone right there, I've apologized somewhat. Thanks for your input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries; everyone gets frustrated from time to time. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

how?

Someone deleted the entire image while permissions are pending unnecessarily. How do I get the image back? Kmhistory (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You can ask the deleting admin to follow up by posting a request on their talk page. Alternatively, you can try WP:REFUND. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this the file you had in mind? If so, it is not deleted. VQuakr (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

notability question

Hi! So, I'm working on the Jayshree Pandya bio -- thanks for getting to it so quickly! I'm having trouble with the secondary source requirement for notability, because her work is in a field that's just emerging as a result of the political/financial turbulence of the past few decades. Suggestions? Amazon has called this field "Country risk", but if you look at Wiki's country risk page, it's very oriented towards the financial risk aspect... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writethestory (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The extreme example of an "emerging" field would be something that feel under the spirit of WP:UPANDCOMING. That is not necessarily the case here as I think it is more borderline, but it should be a red flag whenever it is difficult to find secondary sources that discuss a subject, particularly a biography like Jayshree Pandya. Has she been the subject of, for example, interviews published in a reliable, independent venue? VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, no for the interviews, but that's not entirely surprising for academics. I do know that she has a book that's due for public release at the end of this month, so there might be interviews to cite then. What's your take on it? The main thing about her profile that's unique is her global risk assessment theory, which hasn't really been done before. Writethestory (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But if her theory has not been discussed by third parties, it does not make her notable. VQuakr (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the problem is that her theory hasn't been discussed in written form. Okay, I'll shelf it until I can gather more secondary sources. Could you put the article in my sandbox? I'm afraid I don't quite know how to pull down articles. Thanks for your help! Writethestory (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, I moved it to User:Writethestory/Jayshree Pandya. VQuakr (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Ainsworth

You have managed to confuse me. What exactly would you like me to do? If I did something wrong, it was by mistake and you can correct it if you desire. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fix it actually, we need an admin to correct the page history (I put a request on the page). When moving a draft article from user space to article space, please use the move button rather than cutting and pasting the content, to preserve the article contribution history. Thanks for crediting the author though, so I could quickly see where it was copied from. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I know the move button exists (I've used it plenty of times), but I did not know it was appropriate to use it on user spaces (I figured that it was private). It was not my intention to erase the contributions of the other user; I apologize if that is the impression you may have gotten. Nonetheless, I notice that you saw I credited the original author. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

Hi, I created a new article today titled Shcramjet on which you have tagged multiple issues including notability, single source, and original research. I agree to the single source issue because Shcramjet is a very new concept and I could not get any reference that cite only the theoretical aspects; most of them are technical papers and I did not include them in the citations earlier. However, I have added two new citations so I guess that should fix the problem. The issues concerning notability and original research are not true since this actually is a promising field that many researches are looking into and is gaining some momentum lately. I personally am involved in its research so I understand the objective of it to quite a professional level. I have tried my best to revise the article within the limiting time that I have but I think it will do quite well as a stub for now. And I will surely be making further revisions later. So please be kind enough to revise your tags. Thank you. --Sudip 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I will have a look, thanks for the post. It is only natural for us to write about what we know, but you might want to read WP:COI to make sure you are editing within the neutrality policy here. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Many thanks for your valuable help with my Treadwell's Bookshop article. (Phil, London UK) Plwest6 (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

request for help

This is getting crazy. Mike again inputed the self published tags for Samuel H wood without giving any reason why (as per the talk page for the article). He ignored the talk page. Claiming that a scientist is self-publishing is incredibly serious (especially wood, who is world famous). Mike then leaves a 'last warning' on my talk page that I will be blocked- but he isn't an admin. Is there anything that can be done? Kmhistory (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Other editors are more likely to listen to you if you more carefully observe WP:CIVIL and avoid other tendentious behaviors like calling non-vandalism edits vandalism. As stated in the self-published sources template, this is not a statement about the subject of a biographical article and so not a WP:BLP concern. Remember, do not edit war even if you believe you are correct. An acceptable alternative is to pursue dispute resolution, though I do not think it is necessary in this case and at this time (just my 2c). VQuakr (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Welcome, and for the cookies, VQuakr. Appreciated.

Plwest6 (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback

Hey guys.

I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.

This is being done through the Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).

All the best, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

HELP ME PLEASE!

How do you move an article with using talk and what are you saying to me when you sent me that message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nultiaaliyah1 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

SIR,

I JUST WANT TO create an article about the photogrpahy/video distributor in the phillippines. i am confused what approach to use since you have deleted my 1st and 2nd attempts. i cant understand the tutorial. can you give me tips? thanks! alvin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinglori (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

All articles need to be neutral in tone and have a notable topic for their subject. Your article creation attempts so far do not appear to meet either of these requirements. You might want to consider submitting your article for consideration at Articles for Creation, but based on my research of the topic from the time I nominated one of the articles for deletion (incidentally not both, and I did not actually delete anything), I think it is likely that the subject is simply not notable. VQuakr (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Move at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

How do you move an article with using talk and what are you saying to me when you sent me that message? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nultiaaliyah1 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! You want to move Shooting of Trayvon Martin to Trayvon Martin, as you have done in the past. However, other editors (myself included) disagree with that idea. To prevent the page from being moved back and forth, an admin has move locked the page, making it not possible to move until a consensus is reached about what the best title is. This consensus is reached via discussion on the talk page. I modified some of your earlier feedback into a "move" argument at Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Requested_move, but you are welcome to add more information at the bottom of that section if you would like. You do not need to add a template or anything like that, just say why you think the article should be moved. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman

I did not intend to get involved with an edit war, and I did not just revert edits, I tried to discuss the matter but to no avail. In any case, can't we just drop the Hispanic \ Caucasian \ Latino description and describe Zimmerman as just multiracial? We can get more specific when we get better sources. It's the most neutral solution I believe. Otherwise we will have this endless discussion. :) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it makes sense to keep discussion on the article talk page. In the future, consider dispute resolution rather than deleting the same thing more than once. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

RE : Request to userfy a (very) old AfD

Completed as per request. Unfortunately not much sources, you might have to find it yourself! - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, not much to go on there. I'll work from the more recent version, thanks! VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Nationality in the Dark Knight Rises Article

I would like to vote on the nationality of the dark knight rises movie and on whether it should be added to the introduction of the article. Certain editors harassed me to no end when I asked for vote last time. You can actually still see the conversation on the talk page were one of the editors began to verbally abuse me. There seems to be an idea of people "owning" articles. As in, this is my article and no one else can edit it. Not the right attitude for wikipedia-- especially if it is supposed to be a community. Voting may not be the encouraged method, but surely a straw poll or something. The harassment has got to stop. --DavisJune (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you immediately went back to adding the term to the article rather than to discussion on the talk page. This is simply not the way to approach things. The avenue available to you if you feel consensus is not being followed on the talk page is dispute resolution. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment By Editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MikeWazowski is harrassing me. I'm trying to add information about a screening for The Dark Knight Rises and he keeps deleting it saying that no one will care. How does he get to decide what's important and what's not important. I've cited the material. Shouldn't he take this to the talk page. He's just trying to engage in an edit wars. --DavisJune (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw his tag on your talk page and believe it was warranted. Your response to him [1] was not civil. VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Tax uncertainty

Thanks for taking the load off! Hope I get a chance to work on this article. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How to UN-disambiguate

OK. I tried something, and it wound up being trickier than I expected. Now, I'm in a position where I don't know how to resolve the problem. The issue is the article for Modiola. At some point, someone edited it to include a reference to a bivalve by the same name. Problem is, the bivalve's name is Modiolus not Modiola. I reverted the edit, but now there's a disambiguation page pointing to Modiola (plant). Nothing wrong with that, I guess, but there's no point, since there's nothing to disambiguate. Perhaps a See also Modiolus would be more appropriate if any mention is needed at all. In any case, how to delete the disambiguation page and fix the main page?Victor Engel (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a look; you are saying that Modiola (plant) should be moved to the redirect at Modiola? If so, just paste a {{db-G6}} on the redirect, and explain in the edit summary that the reason is to make way for moving Modiola (plant) to the simpler name. A see also tag is probably a good idea, since there is an opportunity for confusion with the similar names (what is the plural of Modiolus?). VQuakr (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but it is over my head, and I'm not sure where to go to learn about this stuff. For example, what does the tag you suggested do? Does it simply allow me to overwrite an article when I try to move it? Is the absence of that tag why my attempt to undo the move failed? Regarding the plural of Modiolus, my answer is mu. According to the rules of binomial nomenclature the genus name is singular. If anything is to be plural, it is the species. There may be multiple genera, but each one is singular.Victor Engel (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough regarding the plural. Still could be a valid search term, but I am pretty meh about it. You can read more about CSD G6 at WP:CSD#G6, and more about the template at Template:db-g6. The function of the tag is to request deletion by an admin, stating that the reason for the deletion is technical (as opposed to potentially controversial). After the page is deleted, you can move the page to the new (now empty) location normally. VQuakr (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remove...

Please remove the One source template. Check if its okay. If u deny it, I'll do my best to add more reference by adding more source. Lee, Eungki C. (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to remove tags like this yourself if you have addressed the reasons for them being placed. VQuakr (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For Science

		The FOR SCIENCE! Barnstar
		Thanks for your awesome work on the hand-coding tool :). You were quite comfortably in the top 5 patrollers; if I make it to OpenSourceBridge in June, remind me to buy you a big ol' beer! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to thank me; you were the one doing the hard work :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Would you mind taking a look at the page "John and Caitlin Matthews" for tone? I edited the page earlier, but removed my edit when I came under pressure from the subjects to make it more eulogic. Perhaps my feelings about this are clouding my judgement.

Thanks!

Plwest6 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey VQuakr/Archives/2012 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey VQuakr! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added to the talk page of Julia Davis (American cinema). What do you think? (Jpgarry (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC))

Previous Rfd – Homestead Book Company resurrected

I am here as you were part of a previously Rfd discussion HERE. Based on the comments on the Rfd, I believe that this article could have been saved if it was cited better and written more in Wikipedia styling and formatting (Wikified article HERE). I have made substantial improvements to the article and reposted it. As you part of the discussion for Rfd (either you nominated or took part in the Rfd discussion), I wanted to personally notify you. While this is not an official Rfc, I would appreciate any feedback that you may have. I have not notified the original creator of the article as it does not look like they have made any contributions on Wikipedia since the article was deleted.

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hungry?

Someone who works as hard as you do must work up quite an appetite. Here: hope you enjoy the cheesy greasy goodness...

Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Mmmm, eicosapentaenoic acid! Thanks!!! VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

This notification is to inform you of a straw poll being conducted at the talk page of Shooting of Trayvon Martin, your comments would be welcome and appreciated on the allegations of witness #9. [2] Note: If you choose to comment, please mention you were contacted via this notification. Thanks!-- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned by name

[here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJenova20&action=historysubmit&diff=502032650&oldid=502029646] – Lionel ^(talk) 09:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I think you were the first to mention my name, actually. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I never mentioned you VQuakr, but Lionelt did and posted this same message on Belchfire's page also. This appears to be a rallying of support or something equally as sinister... Either way i sincerely hope this disagreement/big big argument on HA hasn't put you off working alongside me in future. Thanks and have a nice day/afternoon ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it seems like everyone could relax a little, assume a bit more good faith and maybe enjoy a frosty cool beverage before returning back to editing; but nothing that severe really is happening. FWIW, in my opinion the audience of the post was reasonable but in cases like that you probably should go out of your way to word the notification neutrally, yes? Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think editing it and drawing attention to it again is the best foot forward. I've bought the whole thing and recent events to an administrator's attention anyway to look over. I'd take his advice. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

University of Bedfordshire page

Thank you for your interest in this page. Please have a look at our comment on the Talk page or the Conflict of Interest tread. I think this explains why the recent changes have been made. In the light of this would you remove your conflict of interest flag on the site?

FryerPaul (talk)

Your edits added a large number of spammy external links and promotional language, and watered down sections regarding criticism or controversy of the subject. This is precisely the sort of COI editing that readers should be aware of when reading the article. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and consider using edit request templates on the talk page for controversial edits rather than making the changes yourself. VQuakr (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenny Bae

Hi VQakr,

Thank you for your help on Jenny Bae's page. I'm here very good friend & handling here PR. How do I get rid of "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia" removed? I feel the page is now in accordance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apm44 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion will be closed and the template removed after the discussion is closed, typically a week after it is opened. Since you have a personal interest in promoting the subject, please be sure to read, understand, and comply with WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Popping by...

Saw this edit and thought you might be interested in the thread at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#University_of_Bedfordshire if you haven't already seen it. One thing to bear in mind - the school rep did originally remove that stuff - but following the COI and at bit of a chat some of it arrived back in towards the bottom of the article - hence the article now has things like the 'Worst University' telegraph article in twice. If you fancied getting a bit more involved in the article and stripping out some of the puffery that would be ideal, but I'm aware you've probably got a bit case load... Thanks Fayedizard (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had seen the section on the noticeboard. Help removing the puff would be welcome, though I am working on it now so there may be a bit of "work in progress" mess at the moment. VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies on a few counts 1 - I should have noticed you added the COI tag in the first place, 2 I should have noticed the talk page post just a couple of inches above mine was relevent and 3 I should have waited to see how you were working though the article. Very sorry, and thank you for taking a run though the article - I was a little nervous of getting carried away with the cull... :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No apology necessary; I look forward to continuing to work with you on the article. The school rep seems open to feedback, so I think this one shows promise of a minimum wikidrama level. VQuakr (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tramondos_Industries

Hi VQakr,

Thank you for note on the page "Tramondos_Industries". The reason that I would consider this is a valuable page for the readers because there is not a lot sofa bed supplier in Singapore with a history of 24 years serving this type of furniture. Also, it is one of the leading and reputable sofa bed company in Singapore. (Search in www.google.com.sg with keyword sofa bed and you will realized that it is the leading brand in local search.) Such company with this archievement should have a page in place in wikipedia.

Wallpapersgp (talk) 09:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)wallpapersgp.

Feel free to take it up with the deleting administrator or at WP:REFUND, but in my opinion all the company articles you have created so far were valid speedy deletions per WP:CSD#A7 and clearly did not approach our inclusion criteria. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Pinsex (and Wikipedia in General)

Hi there. My name is Juan Carlos. I'm a doctoral candidate at the University of Barcelona Spain and I have no affiliation with any of the sites I've written and are writing about. I spent about a month reading through all the rules and a week profreading the first three drafts of my Pinsex article written in word. Ultimately you have to throw yourself in the water and try to swim. I sandboxed the article a full eight hours trying to get everything right. Finally when I thought it was ready I posted it and it was deleted almost instantly. I modified the article and tried to use the Pinterest article (which itself was speedily deleted... a few times) as an example. The cultural relevance of that site can no longer be denied. And Pinsex is starting to pop up everywhere. I've started seeing it on facebook... it's shown up on twitter... and as far as i know my article is the first major encyclopedic study of the site. I have more I want to cover as well and I'm doing my utmost to make all changes suggested and make this one work first. Thanks for your help and patience. - Juanaffiliato (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Juan! Please review WP:GNG, and let me know if the site has been covered in reliable, secondary sources as discussed at that guideline. Coverage in reliable sources is the main metric by which we gauge notability, since content should not be included here that is not verifiable. Out of curiosity, why did you chose "affiliato" as the second part of your user name? VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! My journalism professor say he has the goods... and he's kind of a hawk so I believe him. It's an adult site, so there's tons of information about it in the adult world, but I was trying to find sources that "anybody" could go to that were safe for work. Let me know if articles written about it on adult sites count because there are a few of those. As for SFW sites it looks like they've got their own Facebook page, and they are listed on Alexa, and there's a handful of sites my professor is going to give me when he wakes up. (It's 5:51am in Spain now... so we're getting there.) I wanted to start with this site specifically because it IS an adult site, and sites like Youporn and Xvideos have somehow managed to meet the criteria of Wikipedia relevance... (And those sites are now in the Alexa top 100), so I wanted to cover a site that was on the way up. As for Affiliato... it's all to do with coffee. :) They started opening Starbucks here in Spain, so now even the local places have started giving their cafe ridiculous fake Italian-sounding names. Affiliato=Affable+something fake-italian sounding. - Juanaffiliato (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

As I noted at the AfD, deletion discussions (as opposed to speedy deletions) typically run for a week so there may be less urgency than you believe. I suggest you list sources that have located at the deletion discussion; feel free to warn users if they are NSFW but you do not need to censor them. Please note that to establish notability, sources should be reliable and independent of the subject material, so Alexa and Facebook are out. Ah, it also sounds a lot like affiliate as in "affiliate marketing" so I just wanted to check on that and make sure you knew about WP:COI if it applied. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just letting you know. Thanks!Fomeister (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

t's been a week since there have been any edits of issue at University_of_Bedfordshire. The case appears to have settled down and I'd like to think that our corresponding editors now trust wikipedia a bit more with the articles. I've moved the COI banner over the to talk page, but I think we can probably relax with it a little. Very nice working with you and I hope to do so again soon. Cheers :) Fayedizard (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories

VQuakr, My sources... Encyclopaedia Britannica 1973 'Space Exploration', History of Rocketry & Space Travel by Wernher von Braun and Frederick I. Ordway III 1969, Time Magazine July 25, 1969 are extremely reliable. If you think they're not I suggest you take it up with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Those sources state that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because NASA contradicted itself regarding the location of the L1 Lagrange point? Not as near as I can tell. Please review WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not say "Those sources state that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax...". Where did you get that from? I merely stated facts from NASA's own data and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, that show the Moon's gravity cannot be 1\6th that of Earth's, and is nearer to 2\3rds. If you don't like the addition of facts to certain pages I suggest you concentrate on policing pages that you know something about, or at least have the mathematical ability to check figures presented on these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The reader should not have to "check your work." This is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of new theories. You need to provide a source that states the conclusion, not synthesize your own. VQuakr (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If that's all that is requred, then I shall find and reference a publication which contains such facts and figures. I did not realise that my own calculations were placed in a lesser regard than that of a published author. I hope you did not have something important to do instead of checking my addition. Thank you. Torah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The key here is finding a reliable source that directly states that a discrepancy exists, and that it is evidence of a moon hoax. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the publication I mentioned, you will understand that: The facts are from a reliable source (i.e. NASA) There is a discrepancy (they don't 'add up' with NASA's own data that the Moon has 1\6th of Earth's gravity) Hence, there is evidence of a Moon hoax which is why these facts were added to the Moon Hoax section. Which part are you having concerns over? Torah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uktorah (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

NASA's not cited as the publisher of the source; William L. Brian II is. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

To quote WP:SYNTH: '"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.' Note though that my last comment here was made before I had seen that you have provided Brian's book as a source. Is he a reliable source? VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The words 'goalpost' and 'moving the' spring to mind! Reliable sources have been added while you were typing. Please read them. If you want me to go onto the NASA site and find their published transcripts then I will...? I'm sure their figures applied to Newton's Law will be sufficienty reliable. Torah.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Uktorah (talk • contribs)

• Hmm, interestingly enough, there already is a mention of Brian and his book in the article where it's noted that the book is self-published. There is also already an article on the book - Moongate (book). If anything, a brief addition to Brian's views to include that the gravity being wrong could affect the neutral point distance might be warranted. Anything beyond is probably well into WP:UNDUE territory, especially as this is a fringe viewpoint. Ravensfire (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry the reverts make you feel like you are trying to hit a moving target. Several different editors have suggested discussion on the article talk page to refine the edits, which will reduce the reverting in article space. Using a primary source like a transcript and personally evaluating it with Newton's laws of gravitation would be unacceptable because it is original research. I acknowledged that you had switched to Brian as a source in my last post here, as well as one on your talk page. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Message from User:Bailey Chipping

Bailey Chipping -Removed because of referencing

This is Bailey Chipping. You removed my short piece today. I have tried to correct it by adding references. If this works I can add a few more. But this is my first attempt at writing and entry and it is more than a little ocnfusing. ~I hope yuou get this and if you do, please let me know. But I am unustre how you do get back i n touch! Bailey--Bailey Chipping (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, welcome! I do not think I removed any content you created, but I think you are referring to the proposed deletion of Michael Schofield (campaigner). If so, I see you have appeared to have figured out the use of <ref> tags now; please let me know if you have any questions about references (or anything else). The article still does not appear to have any secondary sources, which are very important for providing verifiable information about living persons. And yes, this is the perfect place to contact me, though you also can discuss the article at the article talk page here. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

As I predicted, there is still not a chance in hell of that debate ending in any way other than keep. Despite that, thanks to your revert of my attempted snow closure, this still has 5 days to run, with the count now at 25 keeps to 4 deletes. If this were to be overturned from this point, it would surely be some kind of Wikipedia record. So kindly reconsider that earlier revert, and the fact that WP:SNOW is nothing but a "polite request not to waste everyone's time". HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is certainly leaning towards keep, but no, it is not a valid SNOW closure. Whose time is being wasted? Surely not yours - just ignore the discussion until an uninvolved person closes it. Personally, I am not comfortable with any snow closure of an AfD where there are multiple good-faith minority opinions. To quote WP:SNOW: "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR, so invoking it can never be 'invalid', only disputed. And sorry but no, I will not ignore a big red ugly tag on an article that is serving no purpose but will have to remain there a further 5 days for absolutely no reason, just because you're not comfortable with a closure that two people have now said is appropriate, over and above the landslide opinion that it will be kept. Your objection is not reasonable becuase you've not provided a single shred of evidence that the eventual outcome is in question. As such, I've asked for an admin to do it. You can add them to the list of people whose time this has wasted. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you tagged HeCameFromTheShadows telling him an SPI case was opened on him? Generally, I intentionally do not do this as it isn't required and often causes problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• ah, I see you have a different case open....I've already connected the two socks and was refused CU. I will endorse now and betting it will get settled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the suggestion that this account was linked to FerrerFour came after I had opened a SPI regarding two other, younger accounts. BTW, the SPI pending clerk section appears to not be parsing correctly; I do not see why but it appears to be more that just that one SPI since there are a number of investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cases/Awaiting_clerk not shown on the main case page. It sounds like you mostly answered your own question, but the reason I chose to notify both accounts was that while HeCameFromTheShadows obviously was not a new user the link to the specific account was more tenuous. I still would be curious to see if the CU reveals a link to Angryjo2012london as well. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking with a CU on IRC and wasn't able to convince them of a pattern with just the two cases, hopefully they will now. I had already extended a block on FF and took away talk page access, and asked DeltaQuad to CU or duck block the other (I prefer more eyes on a block). He is a bit new to CU and very, very cautious. Probably a good thing, but my gut says there are another couple of accounts we don't know about, sleeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional feedback on the "Harrison McAllister Randall" and "Ralph Alanson Sawyer" entires.... I'm working on improving the structure of footnotes and references, inlcuding the elimination of orphan status, to getthese in better shape. Jenszorn (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Florence

Thanks for tagging that. I had just done it myself and got edit conflicted with you. We'll see what the admin does with it. It might be a case for WP:CV. Not good. NTox · talk 06:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a stand alone occurrence. Even on that same page, the editor copied and pasted from here as well. American Tax Funding started as a copyvio of the company's web site. WP:CCI requests at least 5 pages before starting an investigation, but it does appear that all of this editor's contributions need to be checked. Assistance getting the report together would be welcomed. VQuakr (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at his/her contributions over the course of the next day or two. If appropriate, I'm willing to file the CCI, though my experience there is limited. Quite an unfortunate incident, and all too common. NTox · talk 07:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tetiana Starodub

Hello, VQuakr! I saw that you have make some corrections on the article I created, thanks you! Can you please help me improve i, there is some message about cleanup, I'm a newbie very need you help and advise! Kind regards, --Kind regards, Jcrafteam (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, and welcome! I provided some explanation on the cleanup tag, which I should have done in the first place. The things I first noticed that could use more improvement in the article are more secondary sources, copyediting for more natural language structure, and less repetition. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for quick reply! I have looked carefully for your recommendations how to improve the article and did the following: deleted repeating urls, has cut off the works to the absolute key ones left, simplified their structure; made corrections in references deleted bad ones inserted more reliable and understandable in English. As to the other your recommendations I have some troubles understanding what exactly you mean, I would be very thankful if you'd show me in expamples and comparison patterns what should I correct and improve. Thank you in advance! --Kind regards, Jcrafteam (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to thank you for repairing that utter mess I made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance‎.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your third opinion at Talk:Missouri Gas Energy. It was helpful, and I'm sure it will result in an improved article. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BJ by wietngrim

VQuakr, I don't understand why I cannot add a reference from BJ nor a page about BJ by wietngrim, what is the difference with for example: BJ's Restaurant & Brewery or on the BJ page : Bradbridge Jackson - which has no content page? Thanks for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WimBonjean (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, BJ's Restaurant & Brewery is a NASDAQ listed restaurant chain with over 100 locations. Its article is not great, but the company meets the notability guideline for corporations easily. It is unfortunately easy to find examples of not great articles in Wikipedia, which is why we judge articles by our content guidelines and policies rather than comparing them to other articles. VQuakr (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodreads Wiki-page changes

I was curious to know how long to give Goodreads time to address, correct, and delete previous violations of their ToS? (And current "updated" version?) The whole point of a Wikipedia page is to present facts to the public. If violations of their ToS continue and Goodreads fails to respond, shouldn't that be reflected in their Wikipedia page? I have links that clearly show their own "Librarians" (and other general members) repeatedly violating the sites ToS, (with a hate group created to attack authors and harassment on their book reviews pages) and Goodreads failure to address, delete, amend, and punish the violators. (I wasn't sure if I should leave those links here. If you would like to see them, let me know. I would be happy to share it with you.) It just seems to me that if a website is going to post a ToS (or rules of service) and present itself on Wikipedia, then there needs to be a balance of facts presented. And if said website is going to continually "look the other way" of site violations (and violators) or "pick and choose" who can or can not violate those rules, the public should be informed about it. No entity should be allowed to control the content of facts that should or should not appear on their Wikipedia page if indeed evidence is available otherwise. Thank you. Carroll Bryant (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing you use in your question (how long to "give" an entity) leads me to think you may not understand the ways in which Wikipedia differs from, for example, a blog, the BBB, or Goodreads' web site. A large part of our purpose is to neutrally report verifiable information. This site should not be used as a soapbox. To the extent that ongoing criticism has been reported in reliable, secondary sources more information can be added to the article as editorially warranted, but given the recent history of edit warring on the article I strongly suggest discussion on the article talk page first. Conversely, the subject of an article should have little input on what material is included. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"heterosexual rape"

Very well, discussion started. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I replied there. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Christina Hollis article

Thanks for your response to my plea for help with the above article. In general I understand what you're saying, but I based the format and content of my article on existing ones for authors in the same field such as Carole Mortimer that don't have any warnings. I'm not complaining about that article; I just can't see in what respect my own article differs. Ms Mortimer's bibliography is certainly longer, but she appears to have no more references or external links. Mgswiki (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, having looked at the Carole Mortimer article again, I'm beginning to understand. Crudely speaking, there should be nothing in a Wikipedia article that does not already appear elsewhere, either on the WWW or in print - correct? On that assumption, I've made some changes to my article and will dig out more references to add into it over the next few days. Mgswiki (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP is a tertiary source and articles should be based on independent secondary sources. The article you cite is a start class article, not a particularly good "go-by." If you want an article to use for an ideas I suggest selecting one from our best (featured) articles here. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'll gather more specific references and sources over the next few days. BTW I didn't mean to remove your original 'quality' tags - I keep the raw text of the article in a file on my laptop and did a cut & paste without noticing the additional tags at the top of the page, sorry. Mgswiki (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that you've proposed the above article for deletion. In general I understand what you're saying, and obviously you are in a far better position to judge, but there are a couple of points on which I'm not clear. First is, do you only go by the sites listed in the 'Find sources' tag? And second is, given that any person and consequently their career has to start somewhere, at what point would they be considered worthy of an entry? It seems a bit like pulling oneself up by one's bootlaces - what independent sources could there be that do not ultimately lead back to the author's own biography? BTW I updated the article just now to refer only to the content in specific sources. Mgswiki (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No there is not a limitation to just what is in the "find sources" links, that is meant to be a helpful tool. The article does not have any secondary sources, which implies that the subject might not be notable. Yes a career has to start somewhere, but since do not know who will become notable in the future, we look, in the present, at notability guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I appreciate your help. I'm sorry you're having to hand-hold me so much, but as I say it is my first article. Where I'm getting lost is that although I know in general what is meant by a secondary source, I'm not sure what 'secondary sources' there could be for a novelist? Given that the subject of my article has had 17 novels published around the world by a well-known, international publishing house and has sold over a million copies to date, would that not of itself qualify as 'notable'? Mgswiki (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable authors are often the subjects of biographical articles or books. Interviews can also be useful in showing notability if they are independent and significant in their coverage of the person. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thank you for your compliments and your suggestion. I didn't know about the "Did You Know..." page. I'll definitely look into it. Sincerely, Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for the advice about WP:BITE ! TheChampionMan1234 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you find a good way to apply it. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed status of Gibraltar

Thanks for your third opinion. I ask for a clarification, please:

1. When you say "put forward border on original syntesis" what do you mean by that? Am I committing Original Synthesis or not? Are all my contributions? Is it only some? Into exactly which and how?.

2. I had already divided the issues individually, as you have proposed. No response. Had not seen?

3. As regards the sources: Are you saying that I have to start a discussion to determine if the "Max Planck Encyclopedia Public International Law" is a valid source in International Law, if "The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law" is a source valid in Law of the Sea, if "Fordham International law Journal" is a valid source legal issues, if a study of the European Union about territorial waters is a valid source in this question of precisely terrtoriales waters? Please I request you to confirm this.

4. Must be removed the reference to Article 310 of UNCLOS, due to not being supported by any source to apply that law to the issue of Gibraltar as told by you?   Many Thanks--Juanmatorres75 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

What I had in mind in terms of breaking it into parts was to start a discussion on updates to a single paragraph. Once editors agreed with and supported that single paragraph, you could add that to the article and move on to the next paragraph. Numbering your points in a very large post does little for the ease of discussion. And yes, you do have a reply on the talk page; your replies after it are just a few days old so it is unsurprising that there are few replies yet. For sources, you should discuss them on the talk page first. If no one agrees that they are reliable, they are probably not reliable. If there are multiple editors on both sides of the discussion, the noticeboard may be a suitable place to discuss if the source is reliable and valid for the context in which it is being proposed for use. Finally, if I understand your last question correctly then you are correct that Article 310 (a primary source) alone should not be used a source to make statements about the legal status of Gibraltar (except as a source for what the Article itself says). I see that in the article though there are quotes from representatives of Spain and the UK that are clearly related to this section, so there is no synthesis in saying that this document applies to the dispute. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Very kind of you for the clarifications. But I observe that missing answer my first question:

1. When you say "put forward border on original syntesis" what do you mean by that? Am I committing Original Synthesis or not? Are all my contributions? Is it only some? Into exactly which and how?.

Could you answer it, please? thank you very much--Juanmatorres75 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

Several the paragraphs begin with phrases such as "it should be noted that" or similar that together appear to assign a position to sources. If that position was not what the author intended, then you are synthesizing that position. More specifics might come up while you are discussing the individual paragraphs on the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tracey Shelton

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Splitting of the Moon Hoax

Dear VQuakr, I see a tag was placed on one of the pages that I created about a hoax. It says a discussion is taking place. May I know what are the main problems with this article and what should I do to make it more credible. I am not against deletion/merging. But I feel it was a fine article to contribute. --Have a nice day! --Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sadie Louise Kane

Thank you so much. You are a very kind user. I hope you could help me in Wikipedia for I am young and have only few knowledge about these things. Sadie Louise Kane (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're Invited! Wikipedia Takes Portland 2012

<font=3> You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Takes Portland 2012, an annual event which occurs each September in Portland, Oregon as part of Wikipedia Takes America and Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Photographing sites in Portland listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the main focus of Wikipedia Takes Portland. This year the event will kick off at Saturday, September 22nd at noon at Pioneer Courthouse Square. Currently, there are no formal plans--this is simply an opportunity to meet fellow Wikipedians before trekking around PDX to photograph sites on the Register. Not interested in coming downtown? You can still upload your images as part of the international photo competition. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE (number of images uploaded, links to galleries, successes, feedback, etc. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey VQuakr/Archives. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vipul Narigara

Hello VQuakr,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Vipul Narigara for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up; since this was originally a user talk page (I created it when I posted a template on the user's talk page), you may want to notify the user that added the copyvio as well. VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You're Invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012 (Portland, Oregon)!

<font=3>WIKIPEDIA LOVES LIBRARIES: MULTNOMAH COUNTY EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, an edit-athon hosted by Multnomah County Library for the purpose of improving stubs relating to Multnomah County. The event will take place on Saturday, October 27, 2012 from 2:00-4:00pm at the Central Library in downtown Portland. You can view details about this Wiki Loves Libraries event here. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard

Your name has been mentioned in a discussion concerning User: Agadant and the Web Sheriff article at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can join the discussion by clicking here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

wp:AFD-related question

Hi,

I always think of you when I have a question regarding the inside workings of Wikipedia, so I hope you don't mind me bothering you on your talk-page.

Here is my question: does someone keep track of Wikipedians who nominate a lot of articles for deletion, and whose nominations end with Keep votes most of the time? - just curious and many thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no one "tracks" everyone or their nomination to statistically detect people who are not good at making nominations. There was a discussion related to this pretty recently at Wikipedia talk:AFD, now archived here. In practice, concerns about a nominator's AfD nominations typically start from observation of multiple poor nominations, followed by checking the statistics to determine if coaching is needed. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have a minute (or two or twenty...)

Someone like you is necessary at: Talk:Hurricane_Sandy#Full_of_routine_content where things are starting to deteriorate. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I saw this a little late to be of much use, but thanks for the heads up. Rapidly changing events are always difficult to cover in the Wiki format, and this one doubly so because it was so popular, with edits every few minutes. VQuakr (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is still not too late even now. Article was fully protected yesterday saying it will stay protected until Nov 8 (obviously the admins did not stick to this - which will get some grumblings I am sure). Ottawahitech (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I put in my two cents on the talk page about inclusion of the global warming section, and suggested at WP:ANI that the rules restricting behavior on climate change be put into effect on this article. Casliber both added and removed the full protection, so I doubt he will grumble much. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk: A Scause for Applause

Your polite admonition is genuinely appreciated. Your insistence that changing the subject is the proper course of action when dealing with uncivil behavior is not. I am not that particular about where such a discussion takes place. If some preponderance of the community wants such discussions moved to personal talk pages, that's fine. But then that's what you should've lobbied for. Changing the subject is not. As I mentioned on that talk page, the issue with which that discussion was opened was already resolved. Veering back to it, as a solution to the problem of an incorrect venue for a discussion on civility, is specious, and comes across as misdirection. You were contacted to help resolve a problem concerning an uncivil editor, and by refusing to that, you provided one more example illustrating how the WP community is largely incompetent and apathetic in dealing with problem editors. Perhaps you and editors like you should try considering that the level of frustration with which my responses to problem editors like Hearfourmewesique sometimes manifest themselves is do to your refusal to do anything about it.

Thank you also for notifying me about the sockpuppet investigation. However, I don't believe I have anything to add, since I don't have CheckUser powers, nor any evidence that Hearfourmewesique is or isn't O. long johnson. The idea that the two may be one and the same hadn't occurred to me. Nightscream (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:TPYES is a reasonable indication of there being a consensus that discussions about behavioral and civility issues is best dealt with on user talk pages and in WP space, rather than on article talk pages. I did not think I was changing the subject of the discussion on the article talk page, since the section title is Cultural references and it was (and is) not apparent to me where this content dispute was resolved. Editors responding to 3O requests are instructed to look the entire dispute, so you should not be surprised that I did not limit my response to only the query you posted to the board. This is not just my opinion; you may want to reread the third paragraph of WP:3O if you are still concerned about why I attempted to focus on article content in my response.

I absolutely agree that attempting to work with consistently uncivil editors can be supremely frustrating, and it can bring out the worst in anyone. I assure you I am not apathetic, though my competence is certainly more up for debate. If you have ideas on how to address Wikipedia's very real civility issues I would be happy to try to develop them with you - though as you are all too well aware, making people behave on the internet is an uphill battle. VQuakr (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding List of Whistleblowers

Thank you for all your past help, here is something for the List of Whistleblowers. http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-08/local/me-358_1_test-data Stay well ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting read, and a good source! Thanks, and I hope you are feeling well. VQuakr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Those Dirty Words, I wasn't aware that a deletion discussion had started when I speedy-deleted it for promotion (because COI was obvious from the username, and the tone was unduly promotional). Generally, if there's a discussion, I let it run. Sorry. Now I see they've re-created the page (using a different username, presumably) ... if you want to re-nominate it for AfD, be my guest. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of the 40 HARM missiles used in the 1986 Libyan Bombing Raid 31 had suspect Genisco Transducers in them, ref. material

https://sites.google.com/site/defenseweek651989/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on Ladin language

Hi! Thanks for intervening. I want to point out, that I had repeatedly to corrrect an obvious wrong translation. My counterpart likes to be involved in edit-wars also on german and italian wikipedia and since yesterday even on Commons. I beg you to check the sources and enter into the merit of the debate. Sorry that I'm in a hurry, so I don't have time now to list you in detail what is happening. I always tried to discuss the issues first - see talk page.--Sajoch (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder, per WP:EW: Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". Whether or not there are merits to the other person's editing, this needs to be resolved by discussion and dispute resolution, not edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand it was edit-war, sorry. Patavium has now asked a translation by a 3rd party - but till now no response (I dunno, if 3O is the correct place for such a request). I suspect it will be difficult to find a person proficient enough to understand the apparently small but significant subtleties in the italian-english translation. Let's hope.--Sajoch (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As discussions become increasingly technical, the likelihood that a person comfortable answering will notice it at 3O goes down. You could try contacting one of the editors at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Italian-to-English and ask them to provide their opinion. VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Spooner High School

I deleted under G11, because the article was pov and promotional in tone. I often add a remark when I speedy as a pointer to other problems, such as "unsourced BLP" or "no independent sources". In this case, the lack of independent sources suggested that there might be problems with establishing notability, although that's not a CSD criterion for schools. Sorry if my attempt to be helpful has muddied the waters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding input on List of Whistleblowers Page.

Qui Tam Relators input is on the Talk page. Your ideas are sound and makes it easier for the research reader. The last big fix I believe you did with CactusWriter and it improved the format very much. TTT Things Take Time... 166.137.208.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tracey Shelton Headshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tracey Shelton Headshot.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Neatly Application

I have contacted Wikipedia admins through Wikipedia email days ago. They asked me to edit something on my article. The article is not for advertising purposes. I do not redirect to any downloading page or a link to store. I am only illustrating some Neatly features, history, team and enough references that redirect the reader to many articles written by trusted sources talking about Neatly. Take my clues in consideration please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMSayed (talk • contribs) 08:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but to me this article is not even close to appropriate in tone, and would need a complete re-write not be advertising. Even then, I think it is likely that the product would fail our notability guidelines and be eventually deleted anyway. It is very difficult to write neutrally about something with which we have a close personal investment; can you consider instead improving an existing, more general article about a subject you know well? VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I will work on editing the article to seem neutral. Pleasured to have your quick reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMSayed (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookies.

Now I will have to put some in the oven too!

Leng T'che (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting Julia Davis from the list of whistleblowers and erasing portions of her Wiki page?

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Davis_(American_cinema)

Why do you keep removing portions of Julia Davis page, claiming that her information is "disputed" or "couldn't be verified". Disputed by whom? What couldn't you verify? Information related to her case is widely available, including the National Whistleblowers Center, Huffington Post, etc.

Who is disputing her listings/claims?

FilmMouse (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! There is some discussion regarding the reasoning for this at Talk:Julia Davis (American cinema). The sources provided so far have not appeared reliable, because they originate from claims made by Davis without any indication that they have been independently vetted. This makes them unsuitable for contentious claims. I also notice that all of your edits have been related to Julia Davis; please review WP:COI to ensure your editing conforms to our guidelines. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The National Whistleblowers Center is "not reliable"? In whose opinion? Here is what they have to say about Julia Davis and her whistleblowing disclosures (which have nothing to do with the case you referenced):

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1181 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.147.251 (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation removed. This website has no credited author or sources, giving no indication that it is reliable as a source. A similar consensus was reached at the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus with whom? Nonexistent users, whose profile pages don't even exist? If the NWC is not considered "reliable", then you clearly have an agenda for constantly hounding Julia Davis' page and vandalizing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmMouse (talk • contribs) 09:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Existence of a user page has no bearing whatsoever on the weight given to a user's opinions. Please review the guideline on assuming good faith and the policy defining vandalism, and consider striking your last comment. I gave explicit reasons in my last reply as to why I did not consider the web link you provided reliable; rather than handwaving at that perhaps you can frame your opinion in the context of WP:RS? VQuakr (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Craniosacral therapy

Thank you very much for providing a third opinion - it's a useful mechanism! Alexbrn (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Taean

• Taean, Nampo in North Korea
• Taean County in South Korea

You should edit with prudence. Sawol (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. VQuakr (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there should be a disambiguation page at Taean, and the naming convention for the two counties should be consistent between the two countries. Fixing either would have helped me catch that these are different municipalities with the same name. VQuakr (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Taean County is even better known than Taean, Nampo. Taean, Nampo may be not a kun (county) but a kuyŏk (district). By WP:TWODABS a disambiguation page is not needed. Sawol (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I hatted the North Korea article with an about tag for ease of navigation. VQuakr (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VQuakr. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 12:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

		Season's Greetings!
		Hello VQuakr: Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a happy and enjoyable holiday season and a happy New Year. Additionally, Santa Claus is also quite likely appreciative of your efforts to improve the encyclopedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 06:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please make use of WP:BEFORE

This is extremely embarrassing for Wikipedia. One minute of research on your end would have resulted in the conclusion that this is one of the most important jazz music theory books ever written. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling to think of what possible good you think feedback on a 20-month old prod could possibly do. I am quite confident that I am not the first, or the last, to propose that an article needing a complete rewrite be deleted and started over instead of functionally blanked an started over. Oh well, carry on I suppose. VQuakr (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you nailed the problem in your response. The article did not need a complete rewrite, nor did it meet the criteria for deletion. In fact, there was nothing wrong with the version you prodded except that it needed inline citations. Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)