User talk:VQuakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


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

Reverting a close[edit]

[1] was out of process. Not only that but only an Admin can overturn a close. See WP:ANRFC for the correct procedure (take it to AN). Legacypac (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Anyone can review an obviously bad NAC; see WP:NAC for the requirement for such closures to be unambiguous and WP:IAR for the policy on being "out of process". VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about WP:BADNAC. What is so wrong that it requires an IAR reversal instead of taking iy to a Review at AN? Legacypac (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think the original closure was good, or are you still hung up on the fact that I didn't take it to the Central Bureau of RfC Closure Review Bureaucracy? VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I see that my closure was reverted my closure as "supervote" and "obviously bad NAC" . After reexamining the discussion I concluded that the AWB part was indeed wrong. I really don't mind - actually I appreciate it- when people point out my mistakes. However I really believe that civilty and AGF required that you contacted me asking to remove AWB from second statement. Or at least contacting me after doing so-not letting me find it out accidentally. So I would ask you to restore my closure allowing me to fix this part, and AWB can be discussed in another RfC. After all I really don't think that if had been allowed to fix my mistake, it would have still been a bad nac. Best regards. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
No, restoring your bad closure so you could self-rv would be a silly waste of time. There are a number of well-thought-out arguments in opposition to the majority there, so it isn't a good candidate for NAC in general. I disagree that anything I did related to RfC was a violation of AGF, but I will be sure to notify you if something similar comes up in the future. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

For someone that claims to put so much emphasis on process at MfD you seem to ignore it when it suits you. Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

When is suits WP, not me. Invoking IAR once in a blue moon is a far cry from ignoring a stark consensus consistently for months. VQuakr (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page[edit] your template-bombing; I seem to have messed up the {{reply to}} on it. Anmccaff (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Template bombing" is melodramatic. EW notices are a mandatory part of the process. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm, yes. Not unlike the phrase "tag bombing," no? If you have a situatiation where two people each have two reversions, and you chose to template one of them, the process in question appears to be tag-teaming. Anmccaff (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Pot, kettle, etc. Pretty hard to take you seriously given your behavior. VQuakr (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)