User talk:TheQ Editor: Difference between revisions
→STiki: new section |
TheQ Editor (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 281: | Line 281: | ||
I noticed that while you reverting vandals, you left an edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit." Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwin_Hubble&diff=prev&oldid=883078320], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_3166-1&diff=prev&oldid=883078127], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainstream_media&diff=prev&oldid=883077941], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Lacey&diff=prev&oldid=883077716], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=883077149] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poove_Unakkaga&diff=prev&oldid=883077294]. But these edits are not good faith. It is the clear case of vandalism. If an edit is blatantly unconstructive and intentional in its malice, then it constitutes vandalism. But sometimes edits are clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism. In these cases, one should assume good faith by undoing the changes using a Good-faith revert. Please see [[WP:AGF]]. Regards, [[User:Xain36|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #DC143C;">X</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: #000000;">ain36</span>]] ([[User talk:Xain36|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]) 05:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
I noticed that while you reverting vandals, you left an edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit." Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwin_Hubble&diff=prev&oldid=883078320], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_3166-1&diff=prev&oldid=883078127], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainstream_media&diff=prev&oldid=883077941], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Lacey&diff=prev&oldid=883077716], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=883077149] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poove_Unakkaga&diff=prev&oldid=883077294]. But these edits are not good faith. It is the clear case of vandalism. If an edit is blatantly unconstructive and intentional in its malice, then it constitutes vandalism. But sometimes edits are clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism. In these cases, one should assume good faith by undoing the changes using a Good-faith revert. Please see [[WP:AGF]]. Regards, [[User:Xain36|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #DC143C;">X</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: #000000;">ain36</span>]] ([[User talk:Xain36|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #000000;">talk</span>]]) 05:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Hello {{ping|Xain36}}, thanks for bringing these reverts up. I used the good faith revert for two main reasons. Firstly, I did not believe for certain that these edits had been malicious with intent. For the first five edits, it was the first time they had been warned. Secondly, I generally prefer he STiki "good faith" revert button as the message on the user's talk page is customized (blanking, test edits, BLP violations etc.). For [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edwin_Hubble&diff=prev&oldid=883078320 1], it could have been a test edit. I understand their edit summary might have suggested otherwise, but I didn't think I noticed the summary. For [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_3166-1&diff=prev&oldid=883078127 2], I think it could have entirely been possible that it was a test edit / accidental edit especially since it was a mobile web edit. I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mainstream_media&diff=prev&oldid=883077941 3] didn't have any malicious intent at all. The editor might have been confused and instead of using the talk page or putting up a clarification tag, they wrote their concern directly into the article which I would consider as good faith. For [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poove_Unakkaga&diff=prev&oldid=883077294 6], I believe it was entirely in good faith. The editor was trying to give out more information about a film, but did so in a biased fashion. |
|||
: However, looking back on some of my other reverts such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reconstruction_Finance_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=883077149 5] I could've have spent a bit longer evaluating it. The user had made similar edits in the past but was not warned, which would constitute as malicious. My general philosophy is that unless it's very obvious, I usually assume good faith if the editor hasn't been warned before. [[User:TheQ Editor|<span style='color: #ceff00;background-color: #1e1e1e;'><b> ΤheQ Editor </b></span>]] [[User Talk:TheQ Editor|<sup><span style='color: #ceff00;background-color: #1e1e1e;'><b>''Talk''?</b></span></sup>]] 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:41, 15 February 2019
![]() | This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated. |
This is TheQ Editor's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1 |
Hi, TheQ Editor, I noticed your revert, but the anonymous user is correct: Robert Francis Van Wisse surrendered on March 28, 2017, hence the list should be updated. :) Lotje (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hey Lotje, thank you for informing me of this. I didn't know as there was no edit summary. I'll go fix it right now. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 14:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. Lotje (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Lotje, I noticed that there are two other people on the list that was captured. I don't know much about the FBI list and any wiki policies surrounding this. Should all the captured/surrendered fugitives be deleted, their removal delayed, or have them moved to another section or page? Thanks, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- this link is updated regularly. Should we add it on the bottom of the page then? Lotje (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Lotje, Yes, the wikilist should correspond with the actual FBI list. You can move any outdated fugitives to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, 2010s ΤheQ Editor Talk? 14:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- this link is updated regularly. Should we add it on the bottom of the page then? Lotje (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Lotje, I noticed that there are two other people on the list that was captured. I don't know much about the FBI list and any wiki policies surrounding this. Should all the captured/surrendered fugitives be deleted, their removal delayed, or have them moved to another section or page? Thanks, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 14:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- You are most welcome. Lotje (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Eugene Reimer
Hello! Your submission of Eugene Reimer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.
You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Eugene Reimer
On 8 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eugene Reimer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eugene Reimer, who played wheelchair basketball with Terry Fox and Rick Hansen, was the first disabled athlete to receive the Order of Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eugene Reimer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eugene Reimer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex ShihTalk 02:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award
![]() |
The Red Maple Leaf Award | |
This maple leaf is awarded to TheQ Editor for writing new article Eugene Reimer during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC) |
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Welcome back
Thank you for your nice message, and welcome back after your wikibreak!
I noticed that NGC backlog is very large, so I decided to do something about it. We'll see how long will my enthusiasm last :)
Felix558 (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Felix558: Thank you very much! I don't know if you know this already, but on the German and Turkish Wikipedia, there is an almost complete list of NGC articles: found de:Liste der NGC-Objekte and tr:Kategori:NGC cisimleri. Once I have some time, I'll definitely help reduce the backlog as well. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 23:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- @TheQ Editor: Yes, I'm also using articles from the German Wikipedia as a source, they are very useful (fortunately I have some basic knowledge of the German language). If their article (and Wikimedia) do not have an image of the NGC object in question, I try to find some public domain photo on the internet so that I can upload it to the Wikimedia (I did that for the NGC 7259, for example). Felix558 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, TheQ Editor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
![]() Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
GOCE February 2018 news
Guild of Copy Editors February 2018 News
![]() Welcome to the February 2018 GOCE newsletter in which you will find Guild updates since the December edition. We got to a great start for the year, holding the backlog at nine months. 100 requests were submitted in the first 6 weeks of the year and were swiftly handled with an average completion time of 9 days. Coordinator elections: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2018 were elected. Jonesey95 remained as lead coordinator and Corrine, Miniapolis and Tdslk as assistant coordinators. Keira1996 stepped down as assistant coordinator and was replaced by Reidgreg. Thanks to all who participated! End of year reports were prepared for 2016 and 2017, providing a detailed look at the Guild's long-term progress. January drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2017 from our backlog and all December 2017 Requests (a total of 275 articles). As with previous years, the January drive was an outstanding success and by the end of the month all but 57 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 38 who signed up, 21 editors recorded 259 copy edits (490,256 words). February blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 February, focusing on Requests and the last articles tagged in May 2017. At the end of the week there were only 14 pending requests, with none older than 20 days. Of the 11 who signed up, 10 editors completed 35 copy edits (98,538 words). Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Reidgreg. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Recruit
Would you teach me how to review GA nominations. Kpgjhpjm (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
June 2018 GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News
![]() Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
August GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. ![]() Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, TheQ Editor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
December 2018 GOCE newsletter
Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter
Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. ![]() Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
GOCE 2018 Annual Report
Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report
Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your project coordinators:
Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
STiki
Hi,
I noticed that while you reverting vandals, you left an edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit." Re: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. But these edits are not good faith. It is the clear case of vandalism. If an edit is blatantly unconstructive and intentional in its malice, then it constitutes vandalism. But sometimes edits are clearly unconstructive, but lack the intent and malice that characterizes vandalism. In these cases, one should assume good faith by undoing the changes using a Good-faith revert. Please see WP:AGF. Regards, Xain36 (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hello @Xain36:, thanks for bringing these reverts up. I used the good faith revert for two main reasons. Firstly, I did not believe for certain that these edits had been malicious with intent. For the first five edits, it was the first time they had been warned. Secondly, I generally prefer he STiki "good faith" revert button as the message on the user's talk page is customized (blanking, test edits, BLP violations etc.). For 1, it could have been a test edit. I understand their edit summary might have suggested otherwise, but I didn't think I noticed the summary. For 2, I think it could have entirely been possible that it was a test edit / accidental edit especially since it was a mobile web edit. I think 3 didn't have any malicious intent at all. The editor might have been confused and instead of using the talk page or putting up a clarification tag, they wrote their concern directly into the article which I would consider as good faith. For 6, I believe it was entirely in good faith. The editor was trying to give out more information about a film, but did so in a biased fashion.
- However, looking back on some of my other reverts such as 5 I could've have spent a bit longer evaluating it. The user had made similar edits in the past but was not warned, which would constitute as malicious. My general philosophy is that unless it's very obvious, I usually assume good faith if the editor hasn't been warned before. ΤheQ Editor Talk? 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)