User talk:VQuakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jminthorne)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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.


Another Believer

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

VisualEditor News #5—2015[edit]

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?
You can use the visual editor on smartphones and tablets.

Screenshot showing the menu for switching from the wikitext editor to VisualEditor

Click the pencil icon to open the editor for a page. Inside that, use the gear menu in the upper right corner to "Switch to visual editing".

The editing button will remember which editing environment you used last time, and give you the same one next time. The desktop site will be switching to a system similar to this one in the coming months.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs, added new features, and made some small design changes. They post weekly status reports on Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for languages like Japanese and Arabic, making it easier to edit on mobile devices, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.

Recent improvements[edit]

Educational features: The first time you use the visual editor, it now draws your attention to the Link and Cite tools. When you click on the tools, it explains why you should use them. (T108620) Alongside this, the welcome message for new users has been simplified to make editing more welcoming. (T112354) More in-software educational features are planned.

Links:  It is now easier to understand when you are adding text to a link and when you are typing plain text next to it. (T74108T91285) The editor now fully supports ISBN, PMID or RFC numbers. (T109498, T110347, T63558)  These "magic links" use a custom link editing tool.

Uploads:  Registered editors can now upload images and other media to Commons while editing. Click the new tab in the "Insert Media" tool. You will be guided through the process without having to leave your edit. At the end, the image will be inserted. This tool is limited to one file at a time, owned by the user, and licensed under Commons's standard license. For more complex situations, the tool links to more advanced upload tools. You can also drag the image into the editor. This will be available in the wikitext editor later.

Mobile:  Previously, the visual editor was available on the mobile Wikipedia site only on tablets. Now, editors can use the visual editor on any size of device. (T85630)  Edit conflicts were previously broken on the mobile website. Edit conflicts can now be resolved in both wikitext and visual editors. (T111894) Sometimes templates and similar items could not be deleted on the mobile website. Selecting them caused the on-screen keyboard to hide with some browsers. Now there is a new "Delete" button, so that these things can be removed if the keyboard hides. (T62110) You can also edit table cells in mobile now.

Rich editing tools:  You can now add and edit sheet music in the visual editor. (T112925)  There are separate tabs for advanced options, such as MIDI and Ogg audio files. (T114227 and T113354)  When editing formulæ and other blocks, errors are shown as you edit. It is also possible to edit some types of graphs; adding new ones, and support for new types, will be coming.

On the English Wikipedia, the visual editor is now automatically available to anyone who creates an account. The preference switch was moved to the normal location, under Special:Preferences.

Future changes[edit]

You will soon be able to switch from the wikitext to the visual editor after you start editing. (T49779) Previously, you could only switch from the visual editor to the wikitext editor. Bi-directional switching will make possible a single edit tab. (T102398) This project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab, similar to the system already used on the mobile website. The "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time.

Let's work together[edit]

If you can't read this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sovereign citizen movement - Section: U.S. government responses[edit]

Hi, VQuakr,

I'm new, so please bear with me. When I last undid the edit to the above section, I missed the opportunity to write a comment to explain why I did it. I left message for you on the article's talk page and then decided to watch the "View History" video to see if I could leave a message for you. The sources, Eric Holder and John Carlin, made specific references to either sovereign citizens or those with anti-government views. Would you mind looking at my edits and perhaps paring them down to keep is relevant? I believe that the sovereign citizen topic will continue to receive attention in the current political climate of domestic terrorism, and that this article should reflect that.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for all you do, and for having patience with me. :)

Sarah.stark (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah.stark: thanks for the note, again; welcome! I will have a look at the article talk page at some point to follow up. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to NPP[edit]


I remember vaguely discussing some changes to new page patrol with you and others on some public talk page. I am just curious what became of that proposal because I was visiting an experienced editor’s talk page and was surprised to find user:Kudpung reprimanding this user for a wp:NPP infraction and implying that this user was inexperienced and should visit the wp:Teahouse.

I know from experience that some admins cannot tell/won’t take the trouble to check if a user is experienced, but I did not think this particular admin belonged to this group. Could this be a sign that there is just too much pressure and there should be better tools around, or more likely, tools that exist already are not functioning optimally? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, please have the good grace to provide a link to where I am 'reprimanding' an established user. I would certainly not do such a thing unless absolutely necessary and I find the verb 'reprimand' inapropriate unless given in context. The Page Curation suite of tools which I negotiated with the WMF to get made are excellent. The problem is that some people are totally clusess as to their use, or simply refuse to do the tasks required by NPP, and that's why I advocate the introduction of a user right for it. NPP is a far greater responsibility tan vandal patrolling or recent changes but we allow anyone to do it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: I agree with Kudpung that it is impossible to have an informed opinion on a specific interaction without looking at it. To my knowledge, the proposal to add a technical barrier to entry into the world of patrolling has stalled (Wikipedia is good at a lot of things; changing is not one of them). There are a great many users that are excellent writers and page creators that are still unqualified to patrol new pages. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It hasn't really stalled. I just haven't got round to launching the RfC for it yet. Mainly due to those who promised to extract some stats months ago that we need to back up our argument haven't come up with the goods. I think there is going to be serious support for it from high quarters such as DGG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. FYI, you also have support from hind quarters such as yours truly. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I am the "experienced editor" Ottawahitech was referring to in the first comment he made in this section. See User talk:Everymorning#October 2015. Everymorning (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Everymorning: thanks for the clarification! That specific case seems thoroughly talked-out, but feel free to drop me a message or take a question to WT:NPP if you have questions on how a specific article should be patrolled. Quality is a ongoing process, not a destination. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User MetlifeWP[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incidents#Gibberish_edits_by_disruptive_but_well_meaning_editor. Thank you. You helped clean up MetLifeWP's nonsense edits, so I thought you might like to comment on this. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Ya there's no tags for redirects Just wanted to ask the creator why they were making so many seemingly useless ones - Can you enlighten me? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CHEAP. If someone bothered to make it, they probably find it useful. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
These ones are very cheap. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the new page[edit]

Thank you, VQuakr, for moving Alexei Rezepkin to mainspace and fixing it. This Russian archeologist certainly made some interesting discoveries! :) Y-barton (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Y-barton: sure, no problem. Technically you already had put it in mainspace at Y-barton/Alexei Rezepkin, I just fixed the title. Thanks for your thorough and well written new article! VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on the page of City Montessori School[edit]

@VQuakr, the content was not intended to be posted as promotional material on the page of City Montessori School. It was intended as a resource in reply to several users' addition of the 'Controversies' section and as such was a clarification issued to remove that content that was intended to malign the reputation of a well-known school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishi.khanna05 (talkcontribs) 10:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the kunduz hospital air strike / International humanitarian law[edit]

Why do yo remove my text explaining shortly the the relevant parts of the Geneva conventions with the links to the articles in Wikipedia regarding them?Jochum (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. I explained in my edit summary and on the article talk page when I made the revert. VQuakr (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The references to the appropriate documents are there. I am not removing your contribution you are removing mine. I made a contribution to the talk page to that article before I changed anything. You again are changing my contribution without any discussion. For an edit war you need more than one person. Show me an reason why mentioning the content of the Geneva Conventions is wrong. Stop throwing out my text out without prior discussion. Welcome to the WikipediaJochum (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As discussed in the notice I sent you, you are edit warring by trying to "force through" an edit by repeating it. Multiple other editors have contested insertion of your analysis into the article. I am not sure why you think I have not edited the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How dare you. I used a secondary source, the most serious secondary source you can find, the commentary by Jean S. PICTET, read up on him. Did you read what I wrote? I must assume that you did not, if you accuse me of not using a secondary source. I give you some time to revert what you did to my argument on the talk page.Jochum (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source does not mention Kunduz. It is not usable for analysis of the Kunduz attack. Read WP:CIVIL please. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The source tells that every, and that means every armed conflict falls under GC IV, if that does not include Kunduz, than the USA can not be participant of a armed conflict in Afghanistan and than it could not have attacked the hospital. Your argument with collapsing said use a secondary source and I used a secondary source, so I revert your collapse.Jochum (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You are synthesizing the connection yourself. Do not analyze sources this way. Instead use analysis by sources specific to Kunduz (which by definition will be published after the attack). VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I bet you have not even bothered to read what I wrote. That is the guy who wrote the commentary The man who wrote the rules of war. As the attack has already happened I have a difficulty to understand how we could be more after the attack. And all the same, I do not make a judgement, I talk about what rules apply and that does not change with time.Jochum (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Bet all you want. The article you linked was written 15 years ago and is about a commentary written 50 years prior to that. Kunduz occurred this year. Sources about the Kunduz attack will have been written since the attack occurred. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)