User talk:VQuakr

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

As I predicted, there is still not a chance in hell of that debate ending in any way other than keep. Despite that, thanks to your revert of my attempted snow closure, this still has 5 days to run, with the count now at 25 keeps to 4 deletes. If this were to be overturned from this point, it would surely be some kind of Wikipedia record. So kindly reconsider that earlier revert, and the fact that WP:SNOW is nothing but a "polite request not to waste everyone's time". HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is certainly leaning towards keep, but no, it is not a valid SNOW closure. Whose time is being wasted? Surely not yours - just ignore the discussion until an uninvolved person closes it. Personally, I am not comfortable with any snow closure of an AfD where there are multiple good-faith minority opinions. To quote WP:SNOW: "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause." VQuakr (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is an extension of WP:IAR, so invoking it can never be 'invalid', only disputed. And sorry but no, I will not ignore a big red ugly tag on an article that is serving no purpose but will have to remain there a further 5 days for absolutely no reason, just because you're not comfortable with a closure that two people have now said is appropriate, over and above the landslide opinion that it will be kept. Your objection is not reasonable becuase you've not provided a single shred of evidence that the eventual outcome is in question. As such, I've asked for an admin to do it. You can add them to the list of people whose time this has wasted. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you tagged HeCameFromTheShadows telling him an SPI case was opened on him? Generally, I intentionally do not do this as it isn't required and often causes problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• ah, I see you have a different case open....I've already connected the two socks and was refused CU. I will endorse now and betting it will get settled. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the suggestion that this account was linked to FerrerFour came after I had opened a SPI regarding two other, younger accounts. BTW, the SPI pending clerk section appears to not be parsing correctly; I do not see why but it appears to be more that just that one SPI since there are a number of investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cases/Awaiting_clerk not shown on the main case page. It sounds like you mostly answered your own question, but the reason I chose to notify both accounts was that while HeCameFromTheShadows obviously was not a new user the link to the specific account was more tenuous. I still would be curious to see if the CU reveals a link to Angryjo2012london as well. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking with a CU on IRC and wasn't able to convince them of a pattern with just the two cases, hopefully they will now. I had already extended a block on FF and took away talk page access, and asked DeltaQuad to CU or duck block the other (I prefer more eyes on a block). He is a bit new to CU and very, very cautious. Probably a good thing, but my gut says there are another couple of accounts we don't know about, sleeping. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional feedback on the "Harrison McAllister Randall" and "Ralph Alanson Sawyer" entires.... I'm working on improving the structure of footnotes and references, inlcuding the elimination of orphan status, to getthese in better shape. Jenszorn (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Christina Hollis article

Thanks for your response to my plea for help with the above article. In general I understand what you're saying, but I based the format and content of my article on existing ones for authors in the same field such as Carole Mortimer that don't have any warnings. I'm not complaining about that article; I just can't see in what respect my own article differs. Ms Mortimer's bibliography is certainly longer, but she appears to have no more references or external links. Mgswiki (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, having looked at the Carole Mortimer article again, I'm beginning to understand. Crudely speaking, there should be nothing in a Wikipedia article that does not already appear elsewhere, either on the WWW or in print - correct? On that assumption, I've made some changes to my article and will dig out more references to add into it over the next few days. Mgswiki (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, WP is a tertiary source and articles should be based on independent secondary sources. The article you cite is a start class article, not a particularly good "go-by." If you want an article to use for an ideas I suggest selecting one from our best (featured) articles here. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'll gather more specific references and sources over the next few days. BTW I didn't mean to remove your original 'quality' tags - I keep the raw text of the article in a file on my laptop and did a cut & paste without noticing the additional tags at the top of the page, sorry. Mgswiki (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that you've proposed the above article for deletion. In general I understand what you're saying, and obviously you are in a far better position to judge, but there are a couple of points on which I'm not clear. First is, do you only go by the sites listed in the 'Find sources' tag? And second is, given that any person and consequently their career has to start somewhere, at what point would they be considered worthy of an entry? It seems a bit like pulling oneself up by one's bootlaces - what independent sources could there be that do not ultimately lead back to the author's own biography? BTW I updated the article just now to refer only to the content in specific sources. Mgswiki (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No there is not a limitation to just what is in the "find sources" links, that is meant to be a helpful tool. The article does not have any secondary sources, which implies that the subject might not be notable. Yes a career has to start somewhere, but since do not know who will become notable in the future, we look, in the present, at notability guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and I appreciate your help. I'm sorry you're having to hand-hold me so much, but as I say it is my first article. Where I'm getting lost is that although I know in general what is meant by a secondary source, I'm not sure what 'secondary sources' there could be for a novelist? Given that the subject of my article has had 17 novels published around the world by a well-known, international publishing house and has sold over a million copies to date, would that not of itself qualify as 'notable'? Mgswiki (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable authors are often the subjects of biographical articles or books. Interviews can also be useful in showing notability if they are independent and significant in their coverage of the person. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Florence

Thanks for tagging that. I had just done it myself and got edit conflicted with you. We'll see what the admin does with it. It might be a case for WP:CV. Not good. NTox · talk 06:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a stand alone occurrence. Even on that same page, the editor copied and pasted from here as well. American Tax Funding started as a copyvio of the company's web site. WP:CCI requests at least 5 pages before starting an investigation, but it does appear that all of this editor's contributions need to be checked. Assistance getting the report together would be welcomed. VQuakr (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at his/her contributions over the course of the next day or two. If appropriate, I'm willing to file the CCI, though my experience there is limited. Quite an unfortunate incident, and all too common. NTox · talk 07:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tetiana Starodub

Hello, VQuakr! I saw that you have make some corrections on the article I created, thanks you! Can you please help me improve i, there is some message about cleanup, I'm a newbie very need you help and advise! Kind regards, --Kind regards, Jcrafteam (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, and welcome! I provided some explanation on the cleanup tag, which I should have done in the first place. The things I first noticed that could use more improvement in the article are more secondary sources, copyediting for more natural language structure, and less repetition. VQuakr (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for quick reply! I have looked carefully for your recommendations how to improve the article and did the following: deleted repeating urls, has cut off the works to the absolute key ones left, simplified their structure; made corrections in references deleted bad ones inserted more reliable and understandable in English. As to the other your recommendations I have some troubles understanding what exactly you mean, I would be very thankful if you'd show me in expamples and comparison patterns what should I correct and improve. Thank you in advance! --Kind regards, Jcrafteam (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to thank you for repairing that utter mess I made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance‎.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to help. VQuakr (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your third opinion at Talk:Missouri Gas Energy. It was helpful, and I'm sure it will result in an improved article. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BJ by wietngrim

VQuakr, I don't understand why I cannot add a reference from BJ nor a page about BJ by wietngrim, what is the difference with for example: BJ's Restaurant & Brewery or on the BJ page : Bradbridge Jackson - which has no content page? Thanks for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WimBonjean (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, BJ's Restaurant & Brewery is a NASDAQ listed restaurant chain with over 100 locations. Its article is not great, but the company meets the notability guideline for corporations easily. It is unfortunately easy to find examples of not great articles in Wikipedia, which is why we judge articles by our content guidelines and policies rather than comparing them to other articles. VQuakr (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodreads Wiki-page changes

I was curious to know how long to give Goodreads time to address, correct, and delete previous violations of their ToS? (And current "updated" version?) The whole point of a Wikipedia page is to present facts to the public. If violations of their ToS continue and Goodreads fails to respond, shouldn't that be reflected in their Wikipedia page? I have links that clearly show their own "Librarians" (and other general members) repeatedly violating the sites ToS, (with a hate group created to attack authors and harassment on their book reviews pages) and Goodreads failure to address, delete, amend, and punish the violators. (I wasn't sure if I should leave those links here. If you would like to see them, let me know. I would be happy to share it with you.) It just seems to me that if a website is going to post a ToS (or rules of service) and present itself on Wikipedia, then there needs to be a balance of facts presented. And if said website is going to continually "look the other way" of site violations (and violators) or "pick and choose" who can or can not violate those rules, the public should be informed about it. No entity should be allowed to control the content of facts that should or should not appear on their Wikipedia page if indeed evidence is available otherwise. Thank you. Carroll Bryant (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing you use in your question (how long to "give" an entity) leads me to think you may not understand the ways in which Wikipedia differs from, for example, a blog, the BBB, or Goodreads' web site. A large part of our purpose is to neutrally report verifiable information. This site should not be used as a soapbox. To the extent that ongoing criticism has been reported in reliable, secondary sources more information can be added to the article as editorially warranted, but given the recent history of edit warring on the article I strongly suggest discussion on the article talk page first. Conversely, the subject of an article should have little input on what material is included. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

"heterosexual rape"

Very well, discussion started. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I replied there. VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thank you for your compliments and your suggestion. I didn't know about the "Did You Know..." page. I'll definitely look into it. Sincerely, Lenschulwitz (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing! VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for the advice about WP:BITE ! TheChampionMan1234 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you find a good way to apply it. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed status of Gibraltar

Thanks for your third opinion. I ask for a clarification, please:

1. When you say "put forward border on original syntesis" what do you mean by that? Am I committing Original Synthesis or not? Are all my contributions? Is it only some? Into exactly which and how?.

2. I had already divided the issues individually, as you have proposed. No response. Had not seen?

3. As regards the sources: Are you saying that I have to start a discussion to determine if the "Max Planck Encyclopedia Public International Law" is a valid source in International Law, if "The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law" is a source valid in Law of the Sea, if "Fordham International law Journal" is a valid source legal issues, if a study of the European Union about territorial waters is a valid source in this question of precisely terrtoriales waters? Please I request you to confirm this.

4. Must be removed the reference to Article 310 of UNCLOS, due to not being supported by any source to apply that law to the issue of Gibraltar as told by you?   Many Thanks--Juanmatorres75 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmatorres75 (talk • contribs)

What I had in mind in terms of breaking it into parts was to start a discussion on updates to a single paragraph. Once editors agreed with and supported that single paragraph, you could add that to the article and move on to the next paragraph. Numbering your points in a very large post does little for the ease of discussion. And yes, you do have a reply on the talk page; your replies after it are just a few days old so it is unsurprising that there are few replies yet. For sources, you should discuss them on the talk page first. If no one agrees that they are reliable, they are probably not reliable. If there are multiple editors on both sides of the discussion, the noticeboard may be a suitable place to discuss if the source is reliable and valid for the context in which it is being proposed for use. Finally, if I understand your last question correctly then you are correct that Article 310 (a primary source) alone should not be used a source to make statements about the legal status of Gibraltar (except as a source for what the Article itself says). I see that in the article though there are quotes from representatives of Spain and the UK that are clearly related to this section, so there is no synthesis in saying that this document applies to the dispute. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Very kind of you for the clarifications. But I observe that missing answer my first question:

1. When you say "put forward border on original syntesis" what do you mean by that? Am I committing Original Synthesis or not? Are all my contributions? Is it only some? Into exactly which and how?.

Could you answer it, please? thank you very much--Juanmatorres75 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)