User talk:Quetstar/Archives/2022/January

July 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Toys R Us. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Rusf10 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Message received, thanks Quetstar (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

CentOS Board Insults
Regarding this comment, please read WP:PA. I understand that you disagree with the CentOS board decision, but that is no excuse for insults. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Carlwgeorge (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute at CentOS
Hello Quetstar. I looks like you are one side of a slow edit war at CentOS. It's unlikely that admins will allow this to continue indefinitely, so you should consider the use of WP:Dispute resolution. My own personal opinion is that someone ought to write a better description of the fight between the two conflicting groups. Somehow the material published in The Register as well as the Wikinews reports could be made use of. People speculate that the Red Hat company had bad motives, but it's unclear if any of that can be backed up from references. Some effort to create a better description of the controversy might pay off. Note that WP:DRN and WP:RFC are available if somebody is reverting you and unwilling to discuss. I'm also leaving a post for User:Carlwgeorge, who has been disagreeing with you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Last complaint about CentOS at WP:AN3
 * Last complaint about CentOS at WP:AN3
 * Last complaint about CentOS at WP:AN3

COI Tool Notice
Hello, I just noticed (and fixed) an error where a "Not done" reply would mark Edit request as go ahead. I noticed that this happened to you as I am going through fixing any templates marked incorrectly. This should no longer occur, thanks Terasail [✉️] 12:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ikea - Use of Illegal Timber
Hi Quetstar

re: Talk:IKEA

I appreciate your point about the poor editing (although did you have to be so patronising?) - I just couldn't figure out how to reference in the talk page

But about the bias - yes it's our work, but we did spend a year backing it up with concrete evidence, had Channel 4 visit Ukraine to independently report on our findings themselves, and our work has been reported on by many reputable sources

You're absolutely right, I have a clear conflict of interest - but how can the IKEA page be up to date if it is missing two internationally covered reports detailing their wrongdoing?

I'm asking for your help in good faith - what elements appear biased and how would you improve them?

IBM Cloud updates
Hi Quetstar.

Thanks for reviewing the proposed changes in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBM_Cloud#Major_re-write_of_IBM_Cloud. I am an employee of IBM and as such have a conflict of interest, I'm hoping I can work with you to find an acceptable update.

1. I don't agree that it's "obvious PR". I purposely removed the giant list of services (which seems more like PR to me) and condensed them to just a few noteworthy ones. I also modelled the layout after Amazon_Web_Services to include sections such as outages, which is definitely not good PR. Please let me know if there are sections you would like to see added or removed to make this less PR in nature as this was not my intent.

2. You are correct as to your "lack of originality with the history part"! I deliberately re-used the information from the Bluemix article as I'd like to see that page redirect to [IBM_Cloud] as the service has been renamed for many years now and the entirety of the page could be rolled into a section on the IBM Cloud page. Please let me know if you'd prefer I remove this changes for now and add a redirect request instead first. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and am open to proper guidance and suggestions. Thanks again! Stevemar ca (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Stevemar ca: For your first point, while i agree with you on the list of services, the environmental impact section sounded like PR, so i would modify it to make it's language more neutral. As for your second point, you need to make a merge request pursuant to WP:MERGE so that the Bluemix article can be merged into the IBM Cloud one and then, if it's done, request changes from there. I hope that answers your questions. Quetstar (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Quetstar that does clarify things, thank you! I'll adjust the environmental impact, upon a second read it does a bit self promotiony. I'll create a request to merge the Bluemix page too. Will keep you posted. Thanks again. Stevemar ca (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Quetstar I created a merger proposal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBM_Cloud#Merger_proposal). Not sure if it's done correctly as I'm not seeing it on the list of proposed mergers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_article_mergers. Stevemar ca (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Stevemar ca: You need to tag it pursuant to this procedure Quetstar (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Quetstar I added the banners to the two pages. Stevemar ca (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Quetstar I'd like to help with these changes. I'm also an IBM employee, so the same COI applies to me. Please let me know where stand on that one so we can try to get the page to a more up-to-date state. Thanks! --Xsantolaria (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Xsantolaria I recently took an indefinite break from COI requests, so you will need to contact another editor. Quetstar (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Deluxe Corporation
Hi, Quetstar. You told me my edit request to update the History section of Deluxe Corporation should be more concise. I have done just that, and added yellow highlights to ease review. See Talk:Deluxe_Corporation if you are still interested. Thank you. JeremyJuhasz (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Anomali
Hi Quetstar - Regarding a response to the Anomali page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomali), it appears that your account declined a request for an edit (Not done: You need to explain the changes you are wishing to propose. Quetstar (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)). On behalf of Anomali, there was no request for an "edit." We are asking if the flag at the top of the page can be removed, which warns:

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (June 2021) The lead section of this article may need to be rewritten. (June 2021) This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2021) This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2021) Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (June 2021)

We are happy to suggest an edit, but this page is highly similar to numerous other company pages. Is there anything that can be done to remove the warning flag? JWF+Anomali (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The Ivors Academy
Hi Quetstar

Thank you for reviewing my suggested edits for The Ivors Academy - is it possible to advise on what would need to change to read in less of a promotional tone? I'm keen to improve the quality and accuracy of the page, as currently much is out of date.

For example, the currently published 'other services' section is very much in a promotional tone - talking about "our members" and does not include details of campaigning over the last 18 months about music streaming which are of public interest as they have contributed to to a DCMS Select Committee inquiry into the issues.

I completely appreciate that I have a conflict of interest as an employee of The Academy, but am interested in improving quality and currency, not promoting what we do.

Any specifics and advice on what I can do to get the copy to a standard that would meet with editorial approval would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Mark

MT Ivors (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Quetstar Could you let me know specifically what changes would be required to get the copy for the page to an editorial standard that can be approved, so the content is accurate and up to date?

MT Ivors (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your COI edit request responses
Quetstar, I appreciate that you're trying to deal with the (considerable) edit requests backlog. But many of your responses have been curt and with minimal explanation, most notably at Talk:IKEA. I know this is a difficult field to work in (I've taken many breaks from it), but you need to be careful you're not biting those editors. Part of dealing with edit requests is also being responsive to concerns from COI/paid editors. Please try to improve your approach. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your COI Edit Request Responses
Hi Quetstar, thanks for your effort in attending COI edit requests. I have noticed that while declining the edit requests, you mostly mention the edits to be promotional as you did here, here, here and some more places. Given such preferences, I would like to know your rationale how you found this edit request as acceptable. Also, while denying any edit requests, you should point out the policies which had been violated which task if left not done, there would be the possibility of same edit requests popping up again and again which other editors would need to address ultimately. Chirota (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Chiro725: My reasons for approving the Deluxe ER were that the section it sought to modify was out to date (by a decade) and used LinkedIn as its only source. Furthermore, I only approved it after having the COI editor resubmit the ER (I declined the original version for its promotional tone.) Quetstar (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Your close on Talk: Noah Oppenheim
I'm asking you to revert your closure, as it's not an RFC, and your closure was a clear supervote in any case, with no form summary. I'd prefer not to take a matter this small to WP:AN for review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

New message from RFZYNSPY
I don't think your reason for closing this edit request was clear at all. Please provide more information or I will mark the request as unanswered, leaving other editors to make the decision to implement it.  RFZYN SPY  talk 01:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI for Riyadhcafe87
Hi! I made an ANI request on Riyadhcafe's conduct as well as suspicious activity on related pages here. Thought id ping you to ask you to add your invaluable input on the matter. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  14:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will respond on ANI as soon as possible. Quetstar (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Some good news
Hey! Just wanted to let you know I managed to get Future Investment Initiative Institute to semi-protected status for 6 months. That should help deal with ongoing IP PR edits and improve our ability to detect the very likely saudi pr sockpuppet network. Thought you'd appreciate the good news. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  12:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Are the COI Requests for Cooper's Hawk Really "Totally Unnecessary"?
Dear Quetstar,

Like others, I'm troubled that you tend to reject COI edits using the broad brush that the edits are promotional. As Chirota noted, in denying a request, it's important to identify which policy is implicated.

Sdrqaz added, "Your responses have been curt and with minimal explanation ... Part of dealing with edit requests is also being responsive to concerns from COI/paid editors."

I documented and justified the three edits I proposed to Cooper's Hawk Winery & Restaurants on October 27, 2021. Yet, with all due respect, you didn't engage with what I wrote.

For example, please take a look at the sources for Cooper's wine club, which is the biggest in the country and has been the subject of news articles in Crain's Chicago Business and Nation's Restaurant News. This is something our readers will want to know, and by avoiding any mention of it, we deprive them of essential info.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @BlueRoses13 Thanks for the message. The ER was written in a promotional tone, which led me to decline it. COI requests must be written in a neutral tone. The way you wrote it ("this statistic seems like something our readers would want to know") was somewhat off. I will now reopen this ER for further review and consideration. Quetstar (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Quetstar Thank you very much. I appreciate both your speedy reply and your willingness to re-open this request.


 * To clarify: That language was part of my explanation, not the language I submitted for the article. I'm confident the language I used was neutral. For example:


 * "As of 2021, the company has 500,000 wine club members, thus making the club the largest in the United States by membership."


 * Also, I need to ask: What specifically is wrong with saying that X is something our readers would want to know? How does that make X promotional? Doesn’t the very difference between whether something is promotional or not hinge on whether it’s important to our readers?


 * Thank you again.


 * Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @BlueRoses13 To clarify, you must keep the reasoning (that is, the justification behind your request) neutral as well. You can't say something like "X is something our reader would want to know" because that's promotional. Quetstar (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @BlueRoses13 Thanks for your continued exchange here. Can you help me understand what specifically about this phrase is promotional? It seems to be the exact opposite. I'm not declaring that X is absolutely something our readers must know; I'm making a polite suggestion with words such as "seems" and "would." If that's not neutral, I struggle to think what is. Thank you. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @BlueRoses13 The tone of the phrase (for example, the use of "our" and suggestive words like "would") makes it seem like you alone represent Wikipedia, which is not (and never will, as it is a fundamental principle of WP that the entire community represent it, not just one person.) the case. You must make sure to justify the request for your point of view, not WP's. Quetstar (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request decline reason on LoopUp
I am frankly baffled as to why you declined this edit request with the justification of "Due to past COI issues on this article, I decline this request for now." The whole point of COI edit requests is for users that have a COI or are being paid to edit Wikipedia. If the article itself has had issues with COI editors making inappropriate edits in the past, then that has no bearing on any future edit requests made.

This also seems to be not the first time you've had your declines in edit requests being questioned—it may be wise to focus on a less difficult area of Wikipedia before working in this area, as it's one of the more difficult ones that requires a much wider knowledge of policy than most others. I would personally recommend checking out the Task center to see if there are any activities there that interest you. Perryprog (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Perryprog I understand and respect your decision. Quetstar (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments about revdel
Hi, I noticed your comment at ANI, in which you said Also, many of the rev deleted edits were made by ICookie. I think you might be a bit confused by how revdel for copyright violations work. A single edit might contain content that violates copyright, but the admin must revdel every edit made afterward up to the point where the copyvio content is removed. That means even edits that are fine but that are made to a version of the article containing the copyvio content will be revdel'd. If you check the history, you'll see that even edits by and  were caught up in that revdel. There might be other issues with ICookie's edits, but the fact that they were made to a version of the article that had to be hidden doesn't mean ICookie's edits violated copyright. Schazjmd  (talk)  15:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Schazjmd Thanks for the explaination. I will be more careful about revdels in the future. Quetstar (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding COI and the need for edits
Hi Quetstar. You recently reverted some edits I made to my organisation's page, [| World Land Trust], due to a COI which I have declared on my user page (as per [| this section] of the Organisations FAQ). Is there no way for my edits to be accepted even though I've followed the rules and declared COI? We're a relatively small organisation and don't seem to have members of the public volunteering to provide edits, nor do we appear much in external sources. Apologies for the ignorance - I'm a new user, at least on the editing side. I've requested edits to be made on the Talk page but haven't had any takers yet. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you! Sauntering Ibex (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Sauntering Ibex There is a long backlog right now, so it may take some time before editors will notice your request. Direct edits by users having a COI with the article's subject are frowned upon by the community, which is why i reverted your edits. I took an indefinite break from edit requests a while ago, so i'm unable review your request. Quetstar (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)