User talk:VQuakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jminthorne)
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge.

In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords.

Feel free to showcase your work here!

If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

Native Appropriations[edit]

Hiya -

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


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

If you want to change the archival settings, just suggest what you think is best and see if the consensus agrees. I think you may have an uphill battle, because the settings there are quite "vanilla." VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you point to the consensus agreement regarding the initial imposition of the settings? Within the context of the full spectrum of flavours available can you qualify the settings vanilla credentials? Gregkaye (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Archival based on thread age (as opposed to total talk page length) is ubiquitous. You can read more about the available configuration options at User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. I think the consensus for the current settings was achieved through WP:SILENCE; I see that in 2010 the setting was 21 days, not 10. I would not oppose update back to 21d or the more common 30d. Also note that all except the last 6 archives were created manually, not by the bot - the rate of new archive page generation has gone way down since the bot was added. VQuakr (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That is very much appreciated and respected. Thanks also for the link. I also suspect the consensus for the current settings was partially maintained through a level of CP:SILENCE and I apologise if that is not founded. But the thing that I am most aware of is down to me. I appreciate that I started the earlier thread before I had a clue what I was talking about. I am still willing, no, wanting to hack that back possibly starting from scratch as long as you and Redrose64 would be happy. I could even run text by you first. Gregkaye (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at Afd[edit]

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

My comment was a !vote, not an early closure (which, BTW, still would have been explicitly allowed). My comment to the nominator was a suggestion that the AfD was itself unnecessary, not instructions to close it themselves. VQuakr (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, but still as I said. Nominator followed your suggestion and changed it into a redirect. And it is an unlike search term as well. So, WP:SNOW redirect is not a perfect option in this case. Nominator should only do it after withdrawing and not when the Afd is in process. Because during Afd only closing admin does that. Cheers, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—July and August 2014[edit]


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

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

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

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

Looking ahead[edit]

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

Feedback opportunities[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The correct place to have this discussion is the article talk page, ie Talk:Federal Indian Policy. This is massive overquotation; encyclopedic tone is accomplished by focusing on the use of secondary sources. Once your bold edit has been reverted common practice is to move to the talk page as discussed at "bold, revert, discuss". The lack of consensus to include is quite apparent - multiple editors have disagreed with your repeated insertion of these quotes at various articles. Please also review WP:VANDNOT re your spurious accusation of vandalism. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have pointed out that this article by itself meets no standards of academic seriousness or quality. It is making a spurious claim about Jefferson by using deceptively selective quotations, and it makes no attempt at all to demonstrate its implicit claim that Andrew Jackson got the idea for Indian removal from Thomas Jefferson. It is not I who needs to be lectured about rules, which I have not broken and for which the so-called "consensus" makers seem to have little respect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisions reverted on the Popcorn Time Wikipage[edit]

Hey VQuakr,

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to discuss on the article talk page; it has already been discussed at length there. Short answer - just because the project forked does not mean that you have control over the content of the article or get to choose what is "unrelated." VQuakr (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The project isn't a fork. Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn are two completely different projects. There is no relationship between them. Time4Popcorn have simply taken the idea and developed an application based off of that idea. By the same logic, I could start posting stuff about Popcorn Time on Netflixes page because both offer streaming of TV and Movie shows. Just because Time4Popcorn has the word "Popcorn" in it DOES NOT mean it is related. XeonCore (talk) 08:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, article talk page. This has been covered there before, and we are going to need a lot more than your opinion on the subject. VQuakr (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


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

Category:Prejudice and discrimination navigation[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since when to adjectives water things down? That is not how the English language works. The parenthetical configuration was awkward and unnecessary. Feel free to start a move discussion. I will update the navs if no one else gets to it first. VQuakr (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The list contains cut and dried issues like Discrimination, Persecution, and Prejudice and one issue with a potential psychological rationale. I preferred the sequence of presenting the illness before the manifestation. I don't like the sequencing of saying its a prejudice but its a phobia preferring its a phobia and its prejudice. This is stronger. Perhaps you could use the talk page. Gregkaye (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a relevant question - is English your first language? You seem to have trouble understanding connotations in English phrasing, which results in some strange opinions regarding the importance of spelling and grammar on the meaning of phrases and sentences. Generally, parentheticals in a category should be avoided unless absolutely necessary - there is almost always a more natural way to phrase the category name. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Your question is irrelevant and demeaning and, if you have true care on issues of prejudice and equality, you know it. The title is a problem: I also like the longer winded "Prejudicial responses described as phobias" or the shorter but less accurate "Prejudice as phobia". This is regarding: Albanophobia, Anglophobia, Francophobia, Hispanophobia, Lusophobia, Russophobia and Sinophobia which deserve inclusion on a relevant list. Their inclusion in Xenophobia also affect connection to the Category:Prejudice and discrimination navigation. Gregkaye (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The question is neither irrelevant nor demeaning. You have very strange opinions about language, particularly grammar and connotations, such as one might have if they spoke English at a less than native level. That is only a problem if they attempt to push their strange opinions into article-space despite objections from other editors, as you have been doing. VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)