User talk:VQuakr

Wiki Loves Pride

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! Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Pride PDX Wikipedia:Meetup/Portland/Wiki Loves Pride 2014 https://www.facebook.com/events/804661466218694 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.

SP

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)

Problem on Graham story

There have now been arrest and charges in that event. According to Wikipedia this now changes person of interest to "suspect" and allows naming. I can understand if IP cannot remove the blp, but it needs removal. Also person of interest header needs to be changed to "suspect."00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.74.119 (talk)

Please quote the exact policy that leads you to believe that a person being charged changes the guidance at WP:BLPCRIME. Feel free to make changes to the article that do not violate BLP - I only object to removal of the hidden reminder to keep the name out and addition of the name of a person who has not been convicted. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

About the references on the Means End article

Hi VQuakr, you recently edited a Wikipedia article about Means End that I created. I'd like to know why the Youtube and Facebooksources were removed. Without them, some of the information on the page has no evidence. I'm new to Wikipedia as you may know so I'd just like some clarification. JAGuar96 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Because they are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Luc Montanier's stance on homeopathy

On the Luc Montagnier page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier -- I'm amazed that you restore a link like this- http://web.archive.org/web/20140413144840/http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2011-episodes/cure-or-con , and it suffices as a source to repeat what is disinformation about the opinions of a living Nobel-prize winning scientist. 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.148.231 (talk • contribs) 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Mrsip

You seem to have it backwards. The source provided that you link above appears reliable, while the source provided for its removal, here is a blog and is in no way reliable. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC) ETA - the author of that blog is Dana Ullman - to quote our article quoting Time, "the leading proselytizer of homeopathy." VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, "Your" (for lack of a better word) link leads to a TV show episode. The episode is premised around debunking homeopathy. This episode is used as evidence that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]", as claimed by some homeopaths. I watched this TV show. The narrator doesn't even use the name "Luc Montagnier". They refer to him indirectly, calling him "a Nobel prize winner", and they show on screen for a few seconds a picture of what appears to be a journal article by Montagnier and many colleagues. The narrator says "none of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'"

This link is extremely weak to use as a reference that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]". Firstly, the quote the TV show uses is not even a full sentence from him! Your entire evidence that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]" therefore, is a completely decontextualised and partial quote from a not explicitly named scientist, that has been reproduced on a TV show with an explicit bias towards debunking homeopathy. If that's not weak, I don't know what is.

Secondly, the quote refers to extrapolating Montagnier's work to 'products', and not to the practice or theory of homeopathy. This is a critically important distinction. Montagnier is not disputing homeopathy here, although he perhaps disputes using his work to support homeopathic products. These are the actions of a good scientist!

Thirdly, it is disturbing and suspicious that the narrator does not actually attribute the quote to Montagnier by name. A good source does not consist of a decontextualised, partial quote. For example, the TV show could have said to him, "We have a woman here who claims she can cure breast cancer with a homeopathic remedy called 'ABC 12x'. She claims it works, and that your research on high water dilutions provides evidence that it works". In response, Montaginer could have written, "Yes I've done some work on high water dilutions, but I cannot extrapolate my findings to the products used in homeopathy."

If this were the actual context of the exchange between the TV show and Montagnier, would you still be comfortable claiming that Montagnier has "disputed any such support [for homeopathy]"?

Your link to the TV show is extremely weak on its own; but even more so when the assertion it supposedly backs is compared with Montagnier's comments to the peer-reviewed journal 'Science'. You can find these quotes from my link, which is to a blog post written by a professional on the Huffington Post's blog section. The blog publishes direct quotes from the 'Science' article, and it is these quotes- from a peer-reviewed journal- that provide evidence against the assertion that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]".

The peer-reviewed article referred to is the following: Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China", Science, 24 December 2010). Article is found here- http://www.scribd.com/doc/47426344/Luc-Montagnier-French-Nobelist-on-homeopathy.

To quote the 'Science' article directly, Luc Montagnier told Martin Enserink-

"Q: Do you think there’s something to homeopathy as well? L.M: I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10(-18) dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10(-18), you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

and

"Q: Aren’t you worried that your colleagues will think you have drifted into pseudo-science? L.M.: No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

From these quotes can see that, in sum, Montagnier lends more support than dissent to homeopathy. These quotes therefore provide evidence directly against the already weakly-backed assertion that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]."

Please note that I am not making an assertion on the wikipedia page: I am disputing an existing one because it has a weak source, and because there is evidence from a strong source ('Science') that contradicts "your" weak source (which is a TV show with an explicit bias). The link that I provide in my comments is not intended to be published as a source on the main wikipedia page; it is intended to highlight that the claims being made about Montagnier on Wikipedia contrast markedly with the quotes published in a peer-reviewed journal. My link reproduces those quotes.

In addition to the above, the sentence on the Wikipedia page- "He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" should also be deleted because it is blatantly false. Montagnier was working within the dilution range normally used daily by homeopaths, for example, 10(-12) is a common homeopathic dilution. He says that they "lose the signal" at the "extremely high" end of the scale. Homeopathy uses dilutions both at the levels Montagnier was using, and higher. Montagnier found signals at some of the dilutions homeopaths use, but not at all the levels. That is what he was saying. Stating that "he did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" is an outright false statement. It would be far better to leave the direct quote from 'Science' as a full, unbroken quote, and remove the silly opinion that has been inserted in the middle of it that breaks the quote up and misrepresents the true meaning of Montagnier's words.

The following statement must also be removed from the Wikipedia page on Luc Montagnier- "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".

There is no evidence at all that Luc Montagnier was asked by the TV show "if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed", like the wikipedia article falsely states. Once again, I refer to to the contents of this TV show itself: please watch "your" own links. The narrator says this: "None of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'" At no point does the TV show pose the question to Montagnier "Does your work provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths have claimed?" or anything even remotely like this.

The changes that need to be made are thus as follows:

1. The introductory paragraph on Luc Montagnier currently reads, in part: "In 2009, Montagnier published two controversial research studies[3] that some homeopaths claimed as support for homeopathy. Although Montagnier disputed any such support,[4] many scientists greeted his claims with scorn and harsh criticism.[3][5][6]"

It should be edited to read: "In 2009, Montagnier published two controversial research studies[3] that some homeopaths claimed as support for homeopathy. Many scientists greeted his claims with scorn and harsh criticism.[3][5][6]

2. The body of the article on Luc Montagnier says: "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".[4]"

This entire sentence should be removed, since it is demonstrably false.

3. The body of the article on Luc Montagnier says: He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: "We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10−18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10−18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

This should be edited to read: He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10−18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10−18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

VQuakr, I would like to draw your attention to the wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons". " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous".

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."

I therefore request that you please make the changes as I have detailed above, or else provide a suitable source for the claims being made about Luc Montagnier.

41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.84.226.127 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take to the article talk page, but you might want to review WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS first. You'll probably also want to work on brevity. BLP is not being violated by quoting a popular source that says the subject does not support the extrapolation being done by homeopathy supporters. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr-

1. You need to actually watch the source that you are restoring. Please, watch the TV show, and then come and tell me where they ask Montagnier this question: "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed..." --> The truth is that the TV show never put this question to him. You are allowing blatantly and demonstrably false information to stand. Where is your intellectual integrity?

2. This article is making false claims about a living person. The TV show quotes a few words without any context, and you think this is a better source than direct quotes published in 'Science'? Again, where is your intellectual integrity?

3. "Popular source"... I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? Is it an official wikipedia term I am unfamiliar with?

4. How can you think that a block quote from 'Science' quoting Montagnier is better off when a polemic opinion containing demonstrably false information is inserted in the middle of it?

5. I'd like to point out that if Montagnier has in fact disputed homeopathy, then surely there would be a better reference than 8 decontextualised and unattributed words on a TV show. Surely! The fact is that Montagnier is a controversial man in large part precisely because he has not disputed homeopathy.

Once again, I'll point out that I am not advocating any additions to this article, I just want to remove that information which is not true. But it seems that you are not interested in raising the standard of this article.

I'd like to ask another editor to review the decisions that you have made on this article. I don't think you have acted within the Wikipedia guidelines, and I think this is serious because this article involves false information about a living person. Please advise how I may do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.151.160 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

1. I did watch the show; it is an adequate source for the material in the article. Your presumption is not automatic fact, and it is unrealistic of you to expect others to simply believe your say-so.

2. You have not supported your "false claims" statement.

3. No, just a "VQuakr" term. I meant a general interest source, as opposed to a peer-reviewed source.

4. "Demonstrably false" is your term and has not been supported. The quote you provided was from an interview (not a peer reviewed article), and the quote is not at odds with the content of the Luc Montagnier article.

5. Verifiability, as "truth" tends to be easy to subvert.

Yes, you have multiple avenues available to bring this before a wider audience. Your first step should be the article talk page, here, which I linked in my previous reply. WP:DR has a list of all dispute resolutions available, but all presume the article talk page avenue has been exhausted. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr:

1. The TV show does not ask Montagnier this question. How can Wikipedia say it does, when it does not? This is easily proved by watching the TV show.

2. The false claims are that he disputes homeopathy. I have supported my argument very well, for which you took me to task for my lack of brevity. Yet again I remind you that since I am not making a published claim, I do not have to provide a source; I provide both an argument and a source ('Science') nevertheless. Take it as a bonus. The onus is on you to provide a source that Montagnier disputes homeopathy.

3. Thank you for the clarification of your term "popular source".

4. The quote is at odds with the claim that Montagnier supports homeopathy. It is a strong source ('Science'), and Montagnier's comments therein provide far stronger evidence that he supports homeopathy, than your TV show link provides evidence that he does not.

5. I'm not sure what you intend to convey by your point number 5. If you intend to claim that one can verify that Montagnier disputes homeopathy, then I'll strongly disagree and say that I think I've written enough on this point already.

As a newb, I do not wish to get into an editing war, since I'm at a substantial disadvantage technically and process-wise. Nevertheless I have made the changes I think necessary (I have detailed these three changes above) on the article. I have only deleted words, I have not added any. I have supported my changes by way of arguments on the talk page. These arguments are the same I used here but, as you suggested, in a shorter form. Thank you for the guidance you have offered, to take it to the talk page. I hope more people will weigh in.

41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

You removed cited content, which I restored. Suggest getting consensus on the talk page before further article-space removals. Re #5, I was referring to an oft-cited Wiki-essay and linking WP:V. It was not intended to be specific to your edits other than your reference to "truth." VQuakr (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Just dropping by to say thank you for your input on the John Walsh article. I appreciated your thoughtfulness and consideration of the actual issue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No one involved in the edit warring on that article came out looking great. I hoped Msnicki would respond better to me given our civil interactions in the past. No such luck it would seem. Actions speak louder than words, though, so hopefully they will balance their ungracious talk page bluster with greater care in article space. If not, for borderline cases such as this one I suggest using WP:BLP/N rather than repeated reverts. For unambiguous cases, cite BLP in your edit summary (reversions of BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR) and be prepared to explain yourself at EW/N. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Noting BLP in the edit summary is good advice that I shall remember. I had too many shitstorms hit me on totally unrelated topics all at one this past week (phase of the moon?) and I was getting pretty worn down. But I prevailed on this one, so I'm happy enough. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

About the article that was previously deleted

I was trying to get the old article but I coppied it wrong and then dang you deleted the thing right when I got it! It has a really long and odd history also. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khursheed Khan (Co editor)-I keep on messing it up since it has a completely different name! Wgolf (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That AfD was closed as G4, but I do not see where one on him was ever actually closed as delete. Consider nominating for speedy under G5 or G11 instead and reporting the sockpuppet at WP:SPI (the original really should have a SPI page anyways). VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well check out the sock puppet report I just put for the user-apparently there are tons of them (and now accidentally is under 3 different ones by me as I was trying to root it to the original and kept on failing) Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

-BTW sorry about that but yeah it is strange I put up a AFD only to discover that part then, I don't know what to say now considering how many sock puppets there seems to be. Wgolf (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to Undelete page on Interbeing

Recently you tagged my page on Interbeing for speedy deletion claiming that it plagiarized this page. In fact, the page you referenced had copied the material from the original source (and clearly cites that source itself) that I cited on the Interbeing page itself. The material that I included was clearly cited as a quotation and also provided a link back to the original source. It is very clear from that page that the material included is released under a Creative Commons License and it says explicitly at the bottom of the original author's work "Feel free to copy and share."

I would appreciate if you would un-delete my content. I appreciate your effort as a community member at keeping Wikipedia clean, but it would be nice if you could follow the links provided in the actual articles themselves and confirm that the sources cited/quoted actually are released under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia policies. I did this homework myself prior to writing the original article and find it frustrating that the editors monitoring the community are not quite as diligent. Thanks!

Morphatic (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The web page you cite does not make clear that it is a Wikipedia-compliant CC license (it just says "a creative commons license."). I think it is unlikely that this is going to be accepted as an article for a number of other reasons, primarily because the subject itself does not appear to be notable. Please consider reading your first article. If you still think it meets our criteria for an article and want it undeleted, please contact the actual deleting administrator, User:Jimfbleak, or post a request at WP:REFUND - I do not have the technical permissions necessary to delete or undelete an article. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the ping above, and I can only agree with VQuakr. The licence is unclear (many CC licences exclude commercial use and are not acceptable), the topic is of dubious notability, and the content is an essay giving a personal view rather than the basis of a factual encyclopaedia article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

Did you know?

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

Internet Explorer 10 and 11 users now have access to VisualEditor. This means that about 5% of Wikimedia's users will now get an "Edit" tab alongside the existing "Edit source" tab. Support for Internet Explorer 9 is planned for the future.

Tablet users browsing the site's mobile mode now have the option of using a mobile-specific form of VisualEditor. More editing tools, and availability of VisualEditor on smartphones, is planned for the future. The mobile version of VisualEditor was tweaked to show the context menu for citations instead of basic references (bug 68897). A bug that broke the editor in iOS was corrected and released early (bug 68949). For mobile tablet users, three bugs related to scrolling were fixed (bug 66697, bug 68828, bug 69630). You can use VisualEditor on the mobile version of Wikipedia from your tablet by clicking on the cog in the top-right when editing a page and choosing which editor to use.

TemplateData editor

A tool for editing TemplateData will be deployed to more Wikipedias soon.  Other Wikipedias and some other projects may receive access next month. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation.  When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top.  Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358). 

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon, perhaps in late October.

The team is also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables, and early work for this may appear within the month. Please comment on the design at Mediawiki.org.

In the future, real-time collaborative editing may be possible in VisualEditor. Some early preparatory work for this was recently done.

Supporting your wiki

At Wikimania, several developers gave presentations about VisualEditor. A translation sprint focused on improving access to VisualEditor was supported by many people. Deryck Chan was the top translator. Special honors also go to संजीव कुमार (Sanjeev Kumar), Robby, Takot, Bachounda, Bjankuloski06 and Ата. A summary of the work achieved by the translation community has been posted here. Thank you all for your work.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please join the office hours on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 18:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Africa and Europe) and on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC on IRC.

Give feedback on VisualEditor at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta. To help with translations, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre at Meta. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Rtc#October_2014

An editwar always needs at least two people. why was only I warned and not the other person? --rtc (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rtc: you were edit warring against the consensus on the talk page at at least two other editors, which is the answer to your question. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the talk page. --rtc (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If that is your assessment, then why are you repeatedly adding material to the article? VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

To inform readers about the debate. --rtc (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Geller Revisions

Although you restored the original content I edited this morning, you did not respond to the substantive claims I made in regard to the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkin302 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you claiming, then, to be IP 72.69.164.145? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's right. - Potemkin. I'm new to this type of communication, apologies if this is not the correct way to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potemkin302 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Orangemike: it appears the IP created an account after I invited them to do so. I just gave the new account a fresh welcome.

@Potemkin302: I just re-checked the article talk page at Talk:Pamela Geller, and it does not appear to have been edited in several weeks. Where did you make these claims regarding the content removals? In any case, if you still have concerns about the content of that article, I suggest the best place to converse about it is the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thank you for your gift and suggestions! It is a privilege to meet you. Here is a brownie for you as a return gift! Looking forward to your suggestions and co-operations in future also. :) -- Sudip1993. Sudip1993 (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It really is two-thirds

I gave you the full supporting quote on the talk page here. It is not WP:SYNTH to add 1/3 + 1/3 and come up with 2/3. Per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not numerical summarization, it is not WP:SYNTH to do simple arithmetic. When I originally wrote the sentence I said "roughly two-thirds". User:Diannaa trimmed out the "roughly" here, explaining here that when you say two-thirds, everyone knows that's an approximation. I think you should restore the "two-thirds" like you said you would if the support was provided. Btw, you're on the hairy edge of 3RR. You're at 3 if you don't count your initial deletion, 4 if you do. Msnicki (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)