User talk:VQuakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


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)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sending "Welcome to Wikipedia" Messages[edit]

It is important that all editors be treated with respect, fairness and the assumption of good intentions. When an experienced Wikipedia editor receives a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message, how do you think the recipient might interpret the intent of the sender? When do you think sending such a message is appropriate? --Zeamays (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This was a standard warning template, Template:uw-ewsoft, in response to your behavior at Email and the associated talk page. Since the warning template was mostly motivated by your demand not to be reverted (you only actually reverted in article space once IIRC), I used the softer template. Per your request above, I have replaced it with Template:uw-ew. By "experienced" I assume you mean, "has been here a long time." We usually gauge experience levels by competence and knowledge (not chronological age of the account), and you demonstrated ignorance of our editing procedures by edit warring - hence the introductory level warning. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's see. I edited an article, email, to add well-documented new material yesterday. Overnight it had been reverted without any discussion, so I reinstated my edits with a request for discussion on Talk:Email. The other editor did discuss, but he then reverted most of my edits in a sequential series of edits. I have been actively involved in debating the edits, which is the spirit of Wikipedia. Now, for no apparent reason, you have accused me of "ignorance" of "our editing procedure" (as though you have a superior position). I request you to delete this message and language. I repeat, it is the philosophy of Wikipedia that all editors be treated with respect, fairness and the assumption of good intentions. --Zeamays (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Overnight it had been reverted without any discussion, so I reinstated my edits with a request for discussion on Talk:Email. Hence the warning for edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One reversion is not an edit war. I do not think it is appropriate to refer to other editors of "ignorance". Please be courteous. Please delete the unwanted notice, or I will do it for you. --Zeamays (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One reversion, combined with the insistence that your edits must stay. You demonstrated ignorance of our editing practices by doing so - that is not an insult, just an observation. The correct response is to inform the editor of proper editing practices. Feel free to remove notices from your talk page once you have read them, per WP:BLANKING. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia is a group effort that benefits from discussions and "bold" editing, as the policy describes it, not by deleting good faith edits of others. Obviously we differ on what is polite and courteous discussion. You describe my requests as demands, my efforts to foster discussion as edit warring. But more than our disagreement on policy and etiquette, there is a practical problem with allowing deletions of good faith edits without discussion. That is, it plays into the hands of entrenched interests who patrol articles and delete anything that disagrees with their "party line". They waste our time in endless discussions, and the articles never are edited to include the material that doesn't suit their POV. I have seen this happen before. --Zeamays (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. WP:AGF much? Anyways, yes WP benefits from bold editing, but not reckless editing. It seems that you wish our policies said something different than what they do - that is fine, but WP:VP/P is thataway - you do not get to change our editing practices simply because it suits your preference. This is a demand, not a request - and it constitutes edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried to explain why I requested discussion, and for that, you call me "reckless"? You use language that implies you own Wikipeia, and you "demand" changes? Please relax a little. I was attempting to describe my experience with certain editors, not you, please don't think I meant that. But you yourself need to refrain from using aggressive language with other editors, so you might want to re-read WP:AGF and meditate on it. I don't claim to own Wikipedia, but the articles cited in reckless refer to really, really contentious matters, not a sedate technical matter of priority in the history of technology. --Zeamays (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello - you recently sent a message to my Talk page discussing "Edit Wars". Thank you, though - in this case - it was a bit premature. The Talk page of SSM was engaged during editing. Given the topic can be controversial and often "passionate"? The effort on my part is strictly to attain and maintain neutrality while honoring other editor's POV. Easier said than done in some Articles vs others. So, we move forward in good faith and offer dignity to all.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Integrityandhonesty: au contraire, your additional WP:3RR violation after the warning could easily have resulted in your being blocked. The admin chose to lock the article to prevent all edits instead. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we see this differently. As the Talk page demonstrates it is clear as day it was engaged with earnest, respect and in good faith. A difference in POV is not a valid reason to block an Editor. If one breaths they have a POV. Now, attempts at vandalism, disrespect and so on is, of course, Wikipedia policy to block such behavior. All the bestIntegrityandhonesty (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Integrityandhonesty: The 3RR is a bright-line rule, so it does not matter if you are discussing on the talk page at the same time. This is not a matter of opinion; the warning was simply to notify you of the policy. VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor, is this a valid reason to block an Editor. This happens by chance thousands of times a day on Wikipedia. So, I really don't see your point at all. It's best we end it here.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon[edit]


You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202).

Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there!

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move[edit]

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to put POV spin on the article Moon landing conspiracy theories, with no real sources to back up the specific statements, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop impugning my motives, and stop calling my edits and removal of POV spin and unsourced statements "disruptive editing". The point is that source does not back up that last sentence, and the sentence doesn’t even get Percy/Bennet’s point. It’s just pro-Apollo apologist spin and POV. They KNEW it could never be “broadcast live”...either for real or as a hoax. But said that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast live. (And in their view for the reason of too high a risk etc...) The distinction is important, and is sloppily overlooked (apparently by POV Apollo apologists)...the statement is sloppy inaccurate and unsourced. That webpage does not make the point made in the sentence. It’s just POV spin and synthesis. No warrant in that paragraph. I wrote on the article talk page, please click right here. And see what was said. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR. You know the drill... --NeilN talk to me 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RT not Reliable Source?![edit]

Claiming that RT, an internationally recognized News Station is not RS is a bit strange to say the least. Can you point me to a rule here on WP that clearly states that RT is not RS, and if so, I assume that Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CBS, BBC are not RS either? (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Again RS nonsense[edit]

You did not even read the document, did you? If Theodore Postol, a renowned MIT Professor and author of the document/report, is not a Reliable Source, then nothing is. And Brown Moses/Elliot Higgins and Sayerslle/Dan Kaszeta definitely isn't. (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could review the third paragraph of their article. Frankly, the source is so far from reliable that it is silly to even respond. Best of luck, and please note that your next revert on that article will likely result in a block. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


I must ask what you consider trolling about the IPs comment. Nothing about it screams trolling to me.

By the by I also must ask you to not template the regulars. It is unhelpful and frustrating to receive a message telling to me to avoid attacking people especially when I did not do anything of the sort. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 11:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Taylor Trescott: the IP is implying another editor only respects WP:BLP when it comes to male subjects. This is unsubstantiated trolling, and a thinly-veiled personal attack against her. It should be removed per WP:TPG. By restoring the material you, in my opinion, took ownership of the attack hence the template. I subscribe to WP:TTR regarding "templating the regulars"; seniority does not convey privilege here. I will however do my best to respect your wishes unless impractical. Kind regards, and thank you for your follow up and consideration. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)