User talk:VQuakr

Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon: Tuesday, May 12 at OHSU

You are invited!

• Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
• Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
• Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
• This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmccaff (talk • contribs)

Personal attack

Making a personal attack against me at ANi is very uncalled for. Please retract. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: that's a serious accusation. Diff? VQuakr (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That you already forgot or can't identify it shows serious competency issues. [1]. Remove your post now. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: accusations about personal behavior require linked diffs per WP:NPA, which is policy. That you think my asking for exactly what is required by policy "shows serious competency issues" is bizarre. What about that diff do you find to be a personal attack? VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

why you need a diff for something you typed 5 min before is hard to understand. Off to ANi than...Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't pointed out a personal attack. Support your claim or strike it. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

there is no need for me to repeat your personal attack. Now in addition, you twice reverted my edit to G13 AND falsely accused me of edit warring. I make one valid improvement without changing the policy, you revert me twice without discussion except to template me, and somehow I'm the edit warrior? You need to take a break and think about how you treat other editors before carrying down this path. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't made a personal attack. Your repeated, unsupported accusations that I have are in violation of policy, and your eagerness to play victim when your behavior is called out is transparent. The proper venue for discussing your proposed change to WP:CSD is WT:CSD. VQuakr (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be WP:UNCIVIL [2]. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't uncivil. You know better, and you are not a victim as much as you'd love to play one. VQuakr (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor you ran across last night

I've blocked this editor as NOTHERE - not for the original research but for twice adding to articles "note: the author of editing this section is under electronic torture". Doug Weller talk 10:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ya, I didn't have high hopes that they were going to work out as an editor. VQuakr (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello VQuakr, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi VQuakr, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 20:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Inadvisable actions

You stated here. [3] "Attic salt, at this point it is pretty clear that you are being trolled. You can remove anything this user posts on your talk page per WP:OWNTALK. Not all editors here are jerks, but occasionally (as is the case elsewhere on the internet) you'll come across someone who just doesn't want to be nice to newbies."

I have explained my position to Attic Salt quite clearly. There is absolutely no indication he is being trolled at all, and the suggestion of being a "jerk" is a WP:PA. Don't be WP:UNCIVIL. I have attempted to fix the issue multiple times, tried to compromise, gain consensus, but have just been bypassed at every step of the way. Consensus is based on conversation to reach agreement, and on that basis it just cannot be one way. When 'newbies' start using Rfc and seemingly pulling stunts like retiring instead of the normal means of solving issues, you have to question what is going on. (The acusation of WP:OWN on the same lines of discussion by an unregistered User within a day didn't help.)

This Rfc on Talk:Plasma (physics) is not valid because it defies accepted policy, as it fails WP:WRFC, which you have now reverted without any reason. Worst an WP:ANRFC procedure is already in action.[4] As for the message warning me of possible blocking due to disrupt, because the reasons are justified and follow policy to the letter. I have posted a concern to fix this matter with WP:ANRFC, whose assessment of this current reversion may just boomarang.

Thank you for your concerns. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just posted to the WP:ANRFC requesting arbitration of your reversion of my closure Talk:Plasma (physics)#Request for comment. If an Rfc is to be adopted, it must follow accept policy, which appears WP:RFC. The statement for this says: "'Should the first paragraph of the lede contain a definition of "plasma"?", but there ARE two definitions, being:

• 1) "Plasma... is one of the four fundamental states of matter..." and
• 2) "Plasma can simply be considered as a gaseous mixture of negatively charged electrons and highly charged positive ions, however, true plasma production is from the distinct separation of these ions and electrons that produces an electric field, which in turn, produces electric currents and magnetic fields."

Also: "As it clearly states: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." The requester Attic Salt here has made no such attempt."

Therefore the Rfc is invalid. There is no justification for you revert, which is also disruptive editing.

Unless legitimate reasons exist for this, either reverse your edit, or properly justify it. 05:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)