User talk:VQuakr/Archives/2013

Wikipedia edit-thon: Saturday, February 9, 2013
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Page names of Counties in North Korea
When can someone move "Kumchon" to "Kumchon County"? See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean). The proposer changed the guide. Can the proposer User:Kauffner change the guide in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean), Talk:Sinyang County? Sawol (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No response. I will understand that at least you don't oppose that counties' pages are moved to "~ County". Sawol (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Message from DavidCitron
How do I reach VQuakr? DavidCitron (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My talk page right here works great. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCitron (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Intermittently, yes. To address your earlier question, the article made no credible claims that would show the subject was significant, and its tone was too promotional. The subject of an article about a company should meet the requirements of the notability guideline for companies. VQuakr (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Did you edit my page? You can't have web sites listed? DavidCitron (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, the tone was obviously spammy. The relevant guideline, also linked in my edit summary, is WP:UP. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask you then. How is APA's web page still up on Wikipedia, which is similar to what I originally had posted. Then I listed the names as I found them similar to WME, ICM, CAA, and UTA. So what is the difference?

Can I establish a link to the companies on my own page? DavidCitron (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Each article considered for inclusion based on its own characteristics. I would recommend against adding any external links to your user space; in practice just please follow the user page guideline and avoid behaviors shown listed in the conflict of interest guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The only copy and pasting was with the same name it was from my Sandbox. So not sure what you are referring to in your talk. DavidCitron (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the one. Both you and Acroterion edited the page, but when you copied and pasted the content that history was lost. It's a fixable problem, I just wanted to let you know. I posted at Acroterion's page asking him to fix the move. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks. DavidCitron (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought this might be important in Wiki-History under List of Whistleblower's
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-08/local/me-358_1_test-data

Thank you for your time and patience ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought this might be important in Wiki-History under List of Whistleblowers, future use
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-11-08/local/me-358_1_test-data

Thank you for your time and patience ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph F. McCormick
Hi VQuakr -- I just saw your message from Dec. 15. I understand your policies now. I have made no more edits since then. Is it possible now to remove the warning banner on the article about it possibly being "auto-biograpghical" -- that was not my intent in making the edits I made. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephfmccormick (talk • contribs)
 * I notice this article has not been edited since I last removed some promotional content. For to no longer be an autobiography, it needs to be substantially edited by someone other than yourself, which has not happened yet. Feel free to start a discussion about whether the tag is still needed on the article talk page, but since most of content that is there now was created by you, it makes sense keep appraising any readers of the article of its status. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event requested move
Hello,

You may have participated in a prior informal discussion on changing the title of 2013 Russian meteor event.

This discussion has been closed in favor of a formal Requested Move.

You are invited to comment on the formal discussion here.

Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Tracey Shelton, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 02:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
I suggest you to tell someone who cares, because i dont. I neither tolerate or respect any wikipedia admin 91.145.38.53 (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin. This is a collaborative writing environment that aggregates information from reliable sources, not a publisher of The Truth. VQuakr (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

re: Verifiability and reverts
No, nothing has been misinterpreted. ChakaKongtalk 11:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot on Slashdot
Apologies for asking you to get involved. This seems to be more a case of WP:Wikiquette than WP:CONSENSUS or rule interpretation and I wasn't sure where to get help. WykiP (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my delayed response; it has been a hectic few weeks. No apology is needed. As I noted in my 3O reply though, there was an opportunity here that might have missed to work with the editor in a more collegial way. The edit warring accusations started flying around pretty quick, and your repeated linked to an essay was unlikely to shift anyone's viewpoint. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * His instant reversions of any change I made with spurious reasons & refusal to discuss them, editing others' talk page entries etc didn't exactly encourage me.
 * WP:BRD was new to me. Not a particularly helpful title.  I didn't realise WP:BOLD wasn't a guideline. It should be -- Slashdot is dying and unfriendly treatment of new editors is surely the main reason. WykiP (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD is a guideline; WP:BRD is linked from it in the See also section. Your first edit summary read "WP:BOLD readability changes to lede. Deleted stuff repeated in next section.)" You should have been unsurprised that this bold edit was reverted. For one, the lede is supposed to summarize the article - it should consist exclusively of stuff repeated later in the article. Also, the lede is the most visible portion of an article, so it is a good idea to achieve consensus before making article space changes if the changes are likely to be contentious. The takeaway here is that normal practice for collaboratively edited articles is to maintain the status quo until a consensus is reached on the talk page; further discussion was warranted before you started "warning" the other editor. That, and we don't get to pick the attitude of the "other guy". VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I meant I didn't realise WP:ROWN wasn't a guideline. That should make my comment make more sense. ;) WykiP (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Airline79
Please don't WP:BITE. An only warning was a bit much for a user with just 4 edits. Anyways, the user wrote a reply for you to answer in a help me request. Cheers— cyberpower ChatOffline 14:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see another user already addressed the helpme request. I respectfully disagree; an only warning for 4 of 4 edits being spam is completely appropriate. Spam is not a "newbie mistake" covered under the spirit or the letter of WP:BITE; it is an indicator that an editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for Speedy Deletion Altona Hockey Club
Thanks for your review of Altona Hockey Club. There are many third party articles and sources for the Altona Hockey Club and I do not believe it should be tagged for deletion.

My username was a choice so as not to reveal my real name, however, I am not on the board or affiliated in that manner with the Altona Hockey Club and the points I have updated so far are completely factual without any embellishment and all can be verified externally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alahockey (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether you are "on the board" or not is not relevant. You recently attempted to link to an image hosted on a "WP-content" subdirectory of the club's web page. Based on this, your user name, and your edit history I think your intentions here are quite transparent. VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not quite sure I understand. I haven't tried to hide my intentions or be anything less than transparent. I am trying to build our local community, both hockey and the suburb, while at the same time building the (much larger) global community here. There are many pages referencing both the club and the area and many other similar, but much smaller clubs with their own wiki. The reason I have created the Altona Hockey Club page is to add to this, and you can see that from the links that I have added to other wikipedia pages. I am aware that there is a conflict of interest when creating or editing a page that you are closely affiliated with, so I have been very careful with what I have posted and have secondary sources backing up all of it. The club is not-for-profit and I was uploading the image to attempt to add content that is useful to the wikipedia page. I'm not sure how these local community articles are created if it is not by someone who is affiliated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alahockey (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start your own wiki outside of the en.wikipedia.org namespace; you can download the software here. If it is your own website, you can of course post as much detail about your club as you wish since it would not be subject to the standards of this encyclopedia. If you wish to edit here, though, you need to follow the policies and guidelines established by this community - particularly relevant here are the guideline on advertising, the guideline on conflict of interest, the notability guideline for organizations, and the definition of a secondary source. VQuakr (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Biker Biker=
I asked him a question politely yet he would rather just remove my comment than respond, even though I have added sources to the article. If he would just respond I would not have to revert but apparently he can't even be bothered? Whats up with that????? --Vincentjames (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are responsible for your own actions. The guideline regarding user talk pages allows editors to remove nearly all comments from their own talk pages. VQuakr (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Quakr?
Are thee a Friend? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup. A rather nonstandard one though (if such a thing ever existed). VQuakr (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you received my message VQuakr
I am sorry Vincent, I am a bit clumsy being new at this site. I attempted to edit my response to you, but am concerned I may have deleted it by accident. If thee did not receive my response to your original contact with me would you please advise me. Thank thee kindly. Sincerely, Mari~Ten

Mari~Ten (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 

Question
Hi, I am confused as to how my editing is inappropriate? What I have posted is correct, and i citated it appropriately. Thanks, Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.A.Goodman (talk • contribs) 08:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OR and WP:COI. If your "law" has been discussed in intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources then it may be a suitable subject for an article, but note that it is nearly impossible to write neutrally about a subject with which you have a close connection. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete any sources, fix it instead.
Hi, You have deleted the sources. They where Wikipedia content that is true but they were backed up by citing reliable sources, and referenced to a static version of the page. Next time try to Don't delete any sources, fix it instead. KhabarNegar (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They were links to an entire article on Wikipedia. They violated WP:CIRCULAR and did not provide enough information to link the statements they cited back to the original source. There is nothing unambiguous about that policy. VQuakr (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to see if we are talking about the same page! . If there is any problem in the direct main sources so these claims should be deleted from the main source too, and if not I can not understand whats your point. I know you are telling that Wikipedia is not a good source for Wikipedia but that parts have direct sources SO instead of removing the article you as an editor can easily make the parts direct sourced. I can not completely do that(Ive done as much as I can) because of my filtered access to Internet, KhabarNegar (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, they linked to an entire Wikipedia article and were not sources. There was not enough information there to connect them back to an external reference. You are violating policy and then complaining that someone else did not fix it for you in the way you would have preferred, when it would have been infeasible for someone to do so. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right & you get my point, Yes I should be able to fix that my own. Sorry maybe because of being lazy. KhabarNegar (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
I am sorry if I appeared to be disruptively editing. I was trying to contribute towards the High fantasy list, and I am apologize if it appeared to be advertising The Aldren Staff. I will refrain from appearing to advertise any of my works in the future.Ben Shipman (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. I will follow up on your talk page since there is more discussion there. VQuakr (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Aldren Staff is not yet published, but I could find many who await its publication. I assume I could find at least 50 people who expect the release of The Aldren Staff, but I supppose that this is not enough to allow it to qualify for the Wikipedia book standards. I will create a page on it once it meets the guidelines. Until then, I will no longer try to advertise it on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Shipman (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A warning...really.
Don't template the regulars, but whatever. I look forward to seeing you completing the mergings. The list can be found here. AIR corn (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring temporary full protection
I'd like to have a temporary full protection on the page, because I think that will help focus attention on resolving the issue.

A constant pattern and one of the things that has made it drag out so long is that Warren keeps saying he has fixed something with the article, and then I tell him that he hasn't, and that it is editorial, synthesis, OR etc, but he never gets the message so it is pointless, and often trails off into a long debate about that particular thing as well, which is even more of a digression from the central point.

It jut goes on and on and I think if the page is blocked so he can't edit it, then that will help focus on the main issue which is a difference in how we understand NPOV.

So, I was just going to add a request for temporary full protection of the page on grounds of edit warring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection

Does that make sense to you? I posted this to the talk page as well but you might find it confusing to read as he has replied in the middle of it and I have replied to him Robert Walker (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As noted at the protection policy page, protection of a page is a last resort and usually is used as an alternative to blocking the editors involved. I do not think protection of the article is warranted. VQuakr (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks Robert Walker (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to say I have given up on working on this page for now - after many insults from Warren, it got too much for me when he said I needed to get help with mental problems (I'm slightly dislexic or something, have a slight tendency to reverse letters, misspell or reverse words). So have decided to take a week or two off from editing wikipedia and forget about the whole thing, come back after a fresh start and see what has happened and decide what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

File permissions
Could you help me to chose the right permission for "File:Awn Legal Aid Network Doc Video 2013.ogg", I am working in one of the Awn Network Legal clinics, and I created the video by my self? --Mohammed abushaban (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The one you chose at the linked file seems reasonable. VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Black & White Photo for List of Whistleblower
Hello VQuakr wondering if I could send you a B&L Photo for the list ? Best contact ? Hope you are well and congratulations, I still see you plunking away here at the world best answering machine. That picnic sounds very interesting and I will be attending to rub elbows so to speak and find resources. Hope all is well in your world and let it be known you are an important asset at Wikipedia. Look forward to your reply. Sorry forgot to sign out VQuakr Qui Tam Relator 03:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)
 * Absolutely. If you wish to email me a photo to which you hold the copyright, I can upload it and add it to the article. For it to be used on Wikipedia, you would need to release some rights to the photo since all content here is, ideally, free. One way to do this would be to copy the letter below, replacing the appropriate sections with the relevant information, and including it in the text of your email with the photo (this is adapted from WP:CONSENT where there are additional options):

"*DECLARATION OF CONSENT Dear John:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK ' .”

I agree to publish that work under the free license 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported' and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.



"
 * There are other ways of providing permission; for example you can send the permission directly to Wikipedia or use a different license. Please let me know if you want more options.
 * All is reasonably well in my world, thanks for the kind words. I hope you are feeling better, yourself! VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Portland "Wiknic" 2013!
Hope you are able to attend! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Spam links???
What exactly do you consider "spam links" because I'm VERY sure I'm adding ONLY useful, CONSTRUCTIVE and ON-TOPIC links that are not commercially motivated. Sometimes they may be a link to a page on the web I have written myself, yes and so what? I write quality content without any commercial interest. So please keep a little respect for people who honestly want to add USEFULL information and links. I am NOT a link spammer sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizzireynolds (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they may be a link to a page on the web I have written myself, yes and so what? See WP:ELNO and WP:COI. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Concerns for an early Mars sample return for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Concerns for an early Mars sample return is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Warren Platts (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

B & L Photo
Hello VQuakr Do you have an alternative e-mail for sending the Photo. Thank you for your time, ear and patience. Qui Tam Relator 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I just sent you an email to the address you have registered with Wikipedia. If you no longer use that address, please go to Special:EmailUser/VQuakr and send me the address you now use, and I will reply to it. VQuakr (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

B & W Photo
Hello VQuakr

Sent the B&W photo with an interesting article from Life Magazine. Hope you can use the B&W and that you find the Life article interesting.Qui Tam Relator 20:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

HA Schult
There are disputes about the article on HA Schult that involve both content issues as well as issues regarding the conduct of users. As you seem to be a neutral editor, may I ask you for a third opinion on Talk:HA Schult? Wikiwiserick (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the edit war regarding, name dropping? Anyways, it looks like the two of you have been going at it for years; I do not think a third opinion is going to resolve the issues you two have. You might want to consider WP:DRN. Alternatively, you could see if someone more experienced at extended mediation is willing to help; User:TransporterMan comes to mind. VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Super Bowl ring - a biography of a living person?
Hi, if a number of News agency are not  reliable source, then what is reliable source?. --JamesBand (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem in this case was that the story shared by the news agencies was not accuractly represented in the article. The news articles presented the story as a case of conflicting stories, not presenting this as a factual theft. I edited the section to make it meet WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You (1) edited section not to make it meet WP:NPOV. To meet WP:NPOV you must write something like "Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that... but there is no any independent sources for сonfirmation of his words" (2) You deleted sources from 2005 and 2010, make it less meet and WP:BLP. May be you do not like The Times and/or don't know the Russian language and don't use google translate?. Please read artile's talk page as well JamesBand (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the excessive (there were five!) sources because the last two were not necessary. One was from the New York Post and did not offer anything unique. The other was in Russian, did not appear to be as reliable as the other sources, and again did not offer anything unique. This is the English Wikipedia; there is no reason to use a Russian language source if the same information is available in English sources. The reliable sources on this subject consistently report that this neither side has anything particularly well-documented to verify their version of events. I had already posted to the talk page, so I obviously was aware of the discussion there. VQuakr (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:RS says nothing about Russian language sources as unreliable or preferreble English language, is not it? 2. You defenetly did not read the full story (in english) with deleted reference and did not read the full story from free russian source with reverse google translation to english. 3. The Times is not New York Post - you deleted references to this --JamesBand (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC).
 * 1. No, the policy that discusses non-English sources is WP:NONENG. I did not see anything unique about the Russian language source, and ample English language sources are available. 2. I am acutely uninterested in what you think I read or did not read. 3. I stand corrected - I removed 3 of 6 sources, not 2 of 5. I stand by my statement that this needed paring down per WP:OVERCITE, that 6 sources was overkill. We currently are discussing this in three places; I suggest we concentrate further discussion on the article talk page for efficiency. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Rfc or RM
With regards to your mention of an RM/TfC for the Ruhr. FYI the general consensus in the RfC during the Men's rights movement" drama is that while RfC can be used for move requests it is usually more appropriate to use a RM process and not an RfC.

As a RM lasts for a week it is usually not a good idea to invoke a RfC at the same time which lasts for a month. As the RM process has a tailor made close review invoking an RfC at the same time is likely to confuse the issue about appropriate length for the process, whether the RM customary rules apply or those of an RfC etc, etc. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why was DPHOTO removed?
Hey, I'm new to all this, do you mind explaining why DPHOTO was removed from the "List of photo sharing websites"? Says it doesn't meet the criterea but it's a photo sharing website... maybe i did something wrong? Tomdawson91 (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied here. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the article you drafted here and here. In the context of the notability guideline for web sites, this is pretty borderline. "No 1 reviews" is definitely not a reliable source, and "The aperture expert" isn't much better. That leaves CNET and TNW (which does not appear to have a credited author). Again, pretty borderline. I also notice that you appear to have a connection to the web site's creator; please see WP:COI for why this is frowned upon. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD for Concerns for an early Mars sample return - a couple of questions
Just a couple of questions about the AfD. First I have astrobiologist friends, and have mentioned the AfD to them for sympathy. I have asked them not to comment on it due to WP:CANVAS as they heard about it through me and I am sure they would vote Keep for the article. One is an author of papers on Mars exobiology. Just want to check - that I am understanding WP:CANVAS right and that it is the right thing to do to ask them not to take part?

Also I wondered if there is a possibility of listing the AfD in areas of wikipedia to do with Social Sciences and Science Policy. Because - seems to me that the big problem I'm having is with the view that the whole article should be written in a kind of "Scientific objective NPOV" which in Warren's case seems to mean to write the whole thing from a POV close to Zubrin's view that a MSR is safe (and not mentioning or barely mentioning the official NASA / ESA pov). But whatever one thinks about whether that is a suitable POV to use for the article - the whole idea of a single background "objective NPOV" is only used in science / maths etc. articles in wikipedia and I think it could help to get opinions from editors used to writing articles on social issues and science policy issues. Robert Walker (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Asking off-Wiki friends or colleagues to take part in an AfD is technically meat puppetry not canvassing, but the distinction is rather pedantic since both are frowned upon. The technique is also unlikely to be successful, since opinions by a slew of brand-new editors would be discounted by the closing admin. WP:NPOV applies everywhere; the concept of the discussion being different because a different "flavor" of editors are involved is fallacious since ideally an article should be based on secondary sources to the extent that you cannot discern the views of the article's author(s). However, I do not see how a neutrally-worded notice at WT:PHILO (a wiki-project that appears to cover ethics and is at least moderately active) would be problematic. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the clarification was pretty certain it wasn't right just wanted to check in case I had missed some subtlety. That sounds a good suggestion will look into it. Robert Walker (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure how to do it, as someone who studied philosophy myself, for my M.Hum. Yes, there is a close connection with the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom's writings on existential risks (in fact I emailed him about my science20 blog post some time back, nothing to do with the wikipedia article and before the AfD), but the thing is, in philosophy normally you discuss particular examples of ethical conundrums because of their relevance to larger philosophical themes. You could write an interesting paper about the ethics of MSR as an example of philosophical issues involved in balancing highly valued outcomes against a very low probability but severe in outcome existential risk, but this is not a philosophical article itself. So, sadly, I think they would consider it off topic, applied ethics basically rather than philosophy (especially after looking at the other entries on their talk page). I wonder about WikiProject_Environment because of the connection with Talk:Environmental_degradation - post a simple one line AfD statement using this as a model: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment


 * Like this:

AfD Concerns for an early Mars sample return
Comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return

Connection with this project: the main concerns are to do with whether there is a potential of environmental degradation from martian micro-organisms in the sample.


 * Is that neutral enough? Have to explain the connection with the project somehow, and the potential for environmental disruption is clearly stated in the official NRC / ESF reports as a concern.


 * Also if that's okay I'd like to post the same thing (same wording) to WikiProject_Microbiology to attract attention of microbiologists who will be able to assess the material in the ESF / NRC about microbiology and in my experience microbiologists are concerned about this topic when their attention is drawn to it. What do you think? Robert Walker (talk)


 * Had a thought, I could post it to WT:PHILO if I state right off how it is applied ethics rather than philosophy so they don't expect a philosophical page, like this:

AfD Concerns for an early Mars sample return
Comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Concerns for an early Mars sample return

Though not a philosophical page, tis may be of interest to this project as an example of applied ethics, because of the connection with Nick Bostrom's ideas of existential risk. Robert Walker (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Actions of the main wikipedians who opposed me in the AfD
Hi VQuaker, just to say, Warren has created a highly biased version of the Backwards Contamination section presenting Zubrin's POV, I have added a couple of tags to it of CN and POV but leave it to other editors to decide what to do if anything.

Also BatteryIncluded has just archived the entire talk page of Water on Mars with many open sections I believe in order to hide my proposal of a new article on the Present day habitability of Mars.

Just thought you'd like to know. These two editors seem to be intent on modifying wikipedia to eliminate mention of anything that could cause concern about contamination issues for missions to Mars (habitability of Mars surface is of course something that concerns those who want to colonize Mars because it would mean that there are much greater issues of forward and backwards contamination to be dealt with).

I am not at all accusing them of deliberate vandalism. Am sure these are good faith edits. Just feel they show a high level of personal bias on the subject. Robert Walker (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pamela Geller
Hi, why would you claim I added unreferenced or poorly referenced information, when the reference was directly from the best newspaper in the US, the New York Times? The fact that she is living does not save her from being an extremist. If she changes her actions, then we could consider revising the latest information about her. Until then, the info I added is accurate. Thank you. Yozer1 (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not editorialize about the actions of living people. The phrase "hateful rhetoric" was yours, not supported by the news blog you cited as a source. VQuakr (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Patsalos-Fox
I noticed My2011 hasn't been editing in a month or so, so thought I would ping you to hopefully make the corrections I've requested on Talk. I've submitted it as a Request Edit, but unfortunately the Request Edit queue is not really well-manned. CorporateM (Talk) 15:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied on the article talk page. Kind regards. VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Especially for being so prompt! You can count me among one of Request Edits top users. I even made a lot of the Request Edit templates myself, and started working on this.  CorporateM (Talk) 01:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Please consider sending me an FYI when the noticeboard goes "live." VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

oxyhydrogen
It is not clear to me that the editorial policies regarding articles preclude reference to supplemental material in the talk section if that material is relevant to the subject matter. It is true, I wrote this article. What if I asked a third party to the post a link? How is that any different? I think the material should be considered on its own merit regardless of who wrote it. --Entropy7 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Adding links to your webpage when you know they will never be usable as sources is indistinguishable from spam. Please also review WP:PARITY; just because a blog cannot be used to promote a fringe theory does not mean it cannot be used as a source for a verifiable mainstream criticism. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested article
Your requested article is ready for download. In the future, please check the page frequently to see if your request has been fulfilled. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion 2: Feitian Technologies
Hi VQuakr, you asked for the speedy deletion using the G4. At least this page is not promotional anymore. My question is: Does my company name is doomed from Wikipedia because the previous attempts were not compliants? Does Feitian has a chance to be present on Wikipedia? How my content should be the same as the bad attempts since no more drawbacks were reported? THanks for your reply.NickyLarson29 (talk) 08:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

explanation and apologize demanded
Here is 2 posts that i made in the moon hoax article (which was deleted!) tell mo how these posts can be against "good faith" ?!

1. It should be pointed out that there are NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION which can prove that we went to the moon

2. Mythbusters got everything wrong in their program - EVERYTHING. They didnt show us the albedo for one of their light/shadow test, nor did they get the jump salute test correctly. The claim is that it was slowed down PLUS wires was used, yet mythbusters screwed up this one as well by testing them independently. They tested the footprint in a fraction of an inch regolite, yet Aldrin himself claimed it was 2 inches of lunar dust where he made the famous footprint. Further more, David Scott never used a rig for his feather and hammer experiment, yet mythbusters used a rig to drop the feather and the hammer - probably because it would had been impossible to hold something tiny as a feather between your thumb and the finger INSIDE a vacuum, which all along proves that David Scott was on earth when he made his test.

31.209.16.177 (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:BLP before referring to a living person as a "liar" again. See also WP:NOTFORUM and WP:V - your statements will not gain any traction without reliable sourcing, and posts to talk page need to be related to actionable improvements to an article. VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep it to the subject! i just gave you 2 of the 3 posts i made... can you tell me in where of these 2 posts i said someone was a "liar"? kinda amazing that all 3 posts is being censored when i called a liar for a liar in just ONE of the posts. Hard to take you seriously... next time you remove my posts, i will remove yours 31.209.16.177 (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BATTLE much? Anyways, all three of the links I posted above are critically relevant to your behavior. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldnt care less what you think! as i said, bring up or shutup! my question is still unanswered 31.209.16.177 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why would you expect me to be willing to do anything for you after your constant insults and abuse? VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Able2Extract Product History
Hi, I was reviewing the edits you made to Able2extract and am wondering why the Product History was deleted. I don't see how it was any different than the Product History section of Adobe Acrobat. There's extensive coverage of the software's development--version by version updates, detailed changes, newly added features, etc., which apparently isn't considered "spammy overcoverage".... I think it'd be a benefit for users to see the development of Able2Extract, as well. It has come a long way from v.1.0 and would be highly relevant background information for anyone looking it up. That being said, I'd love to get your feedback on how the Able2Extract product history could be re-written. I'm pretty new at editing Wikipedia, so I would greatly appreciate any pointers you may have. Thanks in advance. TorBel80 (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the history section is probably overcoverage in Adobe Acrobat, too. It stands out much more in the Able2extract article though because it dominates (over half!) of the article. Condense the list to a paragraph and source it to secondary sources and it will probably be palatable. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, thanks for the advice! I've been having a go at the redraft and find that all the details that make up the product's development history can't be easily--or artfully, condensed into one single paragraph. So as a work in progress, I started with removing the bullet points and breaking up the paragraphs of the history text into shorter chunks (the better to isolate each point for consideration). I was hoping you could take a look to see if that looks any better? If you have any other suggestions on truncating the section without losing too much of the main points, I'd be happy to give them a try. Thanks so much for your support in all this! Editing Wikipedia is certainly a challenge!TorBel80 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Sandbox
VQuakr are there ways to make a sand box private until ready too publish ?
 * Not here on Wikipedia itself. You could in theory start a local host of the wikimedia software on your local computer. All edits here are open. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Am I On Probation or Banned From Editing?
I received two notices from you. People without explanation deleted me and I reverted. I was told I am in an edit war. I try to correct statements at Wikipedia which suggest Wikipedia taking sides in a controversial subject, which I thought was a desirable thing. I went to the talk page rather than the article so as to bring up a subject that was on July 13 discussed by Michael Moore. It was mentioned early on at Wikipedia and then kept out of Wikipedia: the idea of Trayvon's right to the StandYourGround Law. Someone said Trayvon is not on trial. That is, of course, not the issue. The issue is if Trayvon was defending himself from a man with a gun, Trayvon had a right to fight and this negates Zimmerman's right. Being erased from a Talk page appears to be a violation by those who deleted me. At any rate, no matter where I go at Wikipedia, I cannot get to the editing page. The article becomes faint but does not change to the edit page. What is my status and why? Also, what gave them the right to delete me without addressing me first? Also, while I am here... I don't have tilde on my keyboard and neither does anyone I know. I was told to leave my name, I add four tildes or click something else my keyboard does not have.Daviddaniel37 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any probation or ban applying to you, no. If you click "edit" in an article, it now opens the new visual editor, which is supposed to be more WYSIWYG than the classic editor. To get to the classic editor, click "edit source."
 * Each of the removals of your talk page post had comments in the edit summary explaining why. To recap, the reasons are because each of your posts violated at least one of the following policies: WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:BLP, or WP:NOTFORUM. In brief Trayvon had a right to fight and this negates Zimmerman's right is your opinion, and since it does not advance or recommend any actionable edits to the article (which require a verifiable source), they were removed per WP:NOTFORUM.
 * At the top left corner of the editing toolbar above the screen where you type in the classic editor, there is a button to add your signature (four tildes) without typing the characters. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

RSA Labss (Now EMC), MIT, and ACM are wrong?
VQuaker. I am used to accepting correction when it is due, but for the life of me I cannot understand why cited information from a primary source (RSA Labs) on the fourth factor of authentication is not worth knowing. I am confronted with the information that because it is not a legal requirement as far as you know, it must be spurious. Some people know that it's better to get their legal information from government sources, not Wikipedia. If you are holding up this resource as some type of CFR or USC guide, exposition, or sanctioned resource, then I believe the U.S. Government would like to hear your ideas. Further, "someone you know" (or knows you) is part of network administration--which is part of the brilliance. Needing a cohort or supervisor to provide a human factor is difficult to defeat. Though, I suspect you know this already. I'm not offended though, just immensely confused as to why this item of access control must be devoid of technical information and meet some arbitrary legal standard. I would ask you this: if a user loses their SmartCard (i.e. CAC) and forgets their password, with the premise being that biometric devices or other inherence factor methodologies are not deployed, in most situations does an administrator with knowledge of the user ask they be terminated, or do they reissue credentials based on knowing the person? There are organizations that will terminate you, but I couldn't have said that in my expounding of the 4th factor because it would mean citing information not available to the lay. (I do hope I can "talk" without citing what those in DF and IS would consider common knowledge.) When we set out, it was to provide reliable information, if the mission has changed, well who could tell? Consider me a non-contributor from now on--we aren't allowed to use Wikipedia anyway where I work, it is an anathema. Say what you want unless it surprises someone and then an ego check is issued. I should expect nothing less, after all, I teach. What changed the tone was your dumbing-down and use of nonsensical examples that could not be used to authenticate someone. Smell? Non-sequitur. You gave me things to read, but I'm still waiting for you to cite Wikipedia's policy that information be legally sanctioned and in the format expected by a barrister. I cited my source--where is the citation that the language style, organization, and applicability be in-line with one or more regulatory bodies?

Now a better way to be proactive would be to realize that academic databases (do you have access to them [Elsevier, JSTOR, EDAS, IEEE, SpringerLink], they can be pricey if you try and yet without them you're stuck in a Google funk, but I digress) are full of references to fourth factor. That cash register key the manager uses when you return something, yep, someone you know. An that's been around for decades! Sign up for an account with an ISP, there it is again! Take joy in knowing you have some sheriff star and are for the most part helpful. I just didn't realize you alone set these standards. I repent in ashes and wrend my sackcloth accordingly. Radiochemist (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are replying to a message left by someone else. I posted on your talk page last November, related to you edits at Nuclear weapon design. Generally speaking though, if you are adding information is readily available in journals then citing a source should be easy. You can just provide the citation; the journal being behind a paywall is not a problem. The responsibility of citing information lies first with the editor that added that information. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much for the warm cookies welcome!
Long overdue (like two years), but still gives me a grin. --mazal (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Welcome back, and please let me know if you have any questions. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- 11:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The stand your ground section
Please read the above mentioned section of The Travon Martin talk page and you will begin to understand that there was a rush to delete that section from the article. I think you will find that there were a few to that deletion. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC) I can see now that you have read it already. Thanks for your help. Michaelgossett (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you know...
Someone did a copy/paste from your sandbox?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone is invited to edit in my sandbox; it looks like someone just used my user space for a draft before copying it to article space. Not a problem. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant
The article Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- 04:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Verizon Wireless
... or should that be "Verizon Witless"? Not always easy to discuss "editor behavior" when he or she has a daily-changing ip Talk Page. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Power Balance
Hi VQuakr, Yes, I am new and maybe you can help on the edits I was trying to make to the Power Balance page. The reference (footnoted in two spots) no longer exits on the company's webpage. Therefore, I deleted the footnotes since they lead to an error page only. However, I noticed you reverted those changes. What is the proper path-forward on this? Thanks for your help! -funbobby99 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funbobby99 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Funbobby, and welcome. First off, the web site might have only been down temporarily - they worked when I tested them today. But even if the web site is permanently defunct, links in references should not be permanently deleted. The same content might be salvageable from one of several web archival websites. You can read more about the reasons at WP:DEADLINK. Please let me know if you have any other questions! VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Andrew327 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war notification
So I am the only editor you address in an edit war. Exactly what is you claim? -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page. What you describe as a cabal of editors reverting you looks more like evidence that your proposed changes are not uncontroversial to me. VQuakr (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You construct afterwards. Kww? -DePiep (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I honestly am not certain how to parse your statement above. VQuakr (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Admit. I was Überenthousiastic in this. Quite probably you even saved me from a block -- thanks. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a small thing to come back with a reply such as yours. Kudos, and happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Alencorp
Hello,

I've rewritten the wiki and deleted "advert suspicions", please check again if it's OK now. Thank you. Shan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just posted a section on the article talk page about its notability. The article need independent, secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the article there are secondary sources, is there any problem?Shan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no secondary sources in the article. There are two external links; one verifies that the company donated ~$8,000 to a charitable cause (not independent, not important enough to the subject to be included in an encyclopedia article), the other was a blog source that evaluated one of their products. If you think there are better sources out there, pleast post them on the article talk page and I can assist with adding them to the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support
Yes, it doesn't seem that the WMF are terribly interested in opinions that don't tally with their own. I have to admit that I'm not 100% on whether anyone other than you and I will read anything said here. I think I've snagged myself a stalker already! At the moment, she seems to be following me here, there and everywhere. That's fine by me. I always was something of an exhibitionist! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Make this four (actually the third one is only making sure we stay individuals and don't go around representing anybody). But with some doubts. First, I don't think that the VE is ever going to become newbie-friendly. I don't even think this is its purpose regardless of what we are being told. And even if it manages to become seemingly easier, the newcomer is just a breath away from all the usual crowd here, ready to revert, modify, warn, and generally make sure a newbie starts learning his/her way through our endless simple little policies and guidelines. ''So what the hell are secondary sources? I keep pressing the source code but they don't seem to come out.'' Actually, the way we are going (user-friendly-wise), maybe we should consider letting people share YouTube videos, greeting cards, "like" comments and posts and generally make Wikipedia THE place to hang out. ''Quality content? Oh, you must be an old-timer! Can you send us an autograph?'' Hoverfish Talk 15:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
If you're going to accuse me of edit warring, perhaps you should tag the other editors as well who are doing the same thing. USchick (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I counted at least four reverts by you in the last 24 hours. If you are aware of any other editors that have similarly overstepped, feel free to notify them. VQuakr (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback
01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your work on 2013 Ghouta attacks. It seems the page has become a battleground between Assad apologists/opponents of intervention and, well, everybody else, honestly. I have no idea where you are politically or on this specific issue, but it's good to see another editor just trying to make sure things stay NPOV. Nice to see he's a fellow Portlander as well. Cheers! -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Wouldn't it be great if it was not possible to discern where any editor stood politically based on their edits? VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Takes PDX 2013!
-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Watch Goodreads for a while?
Hey, just hitting you up since I know that you were involved with the initial reversion war on the Goodreads page over the controversy section. Someone is contesting the initial sentence, but isn't really giving a lot of in-depth information as to what parts of the sentence are incorrectly sourced. The problem is that considering how incredibly messy the initial fight was over that page, I'm slightly hesitant to make any big removals from that section. The last thing I want is for anyone to come in and say that we're trying to remove the section entirely or skew the data in any one given direction. I don't think that the IP means any great harm in one direction or another, but the last thing I want is for the drama over that section to start up again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see Sayre's law is alive and well. I will have a look tonight and see if I can be of any help. VQuakr (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
I think there is somekind of talkback thingy but I don't know where it is. Anyway I just wanted to not, I replay to your question. I hope it settles it. --PLNR (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Alleged edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2013 Ghouta attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''In this edit you added "alleged" back into the lede without an accurate edit summary and against consensus. Please exercise more caution.'' VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * There is no consensus on the talk page regarding whether or not the attacks were 'alleged' or 'actual'. Anyway, "alleged" is the common term until independent experts agree the attacks were actual. See Khan al-Assal chemical attack.Haberstr (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is still genuine debate about whether Khan al-Assal was a chemical attack. Broadly published theories include it being a sarin attack, an attack with chlorine gas, or an improvised device that used chlorine in its chemistry but was primary an explosive. By contrast, no credible source denies that chemical weapons were used in Ghouta. As a reminder, the onus is on your to achieve a consensus before adding or restoring content. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also genuine debate, especially (of course) before the UN experts have reported, over whether the Ghouta incidents may have been an accident, as I explicitly indicated ON THE TALK PAGE by quoting an expert who found the 'accident hypothesis' credible. Please read the talk page.Haberstr (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read the talk page. If the hypothesis was correct that Syria failed to control the chem weapons and accidentally bombarded civilians, how does that make the incident "alleged" or not a "bombardment?" VQuakr (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I have replied to you on the talk page, and you have replied to my posts on this subject. Now you are coming to my talk page and telling me IN CAPS to read the talk page, after replying to me and ignoring the fact that there is clearly no consensus for your edits? You are a hypocrite with no credibility as a neutral editor. VQuakr (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re breaking links, it was a serious question. Why would you do that? VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2013 Ghouta attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please note that the article is under 1RR restriction. Please consider discussing changes on the talk page before adding them to article, let alone revert-warring their removal.' Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hi VQuakr there are numerous posts about NPOV. I dont find you being very helpful to date re solving this issue. Besides re NPOV you are not consistent ie with Sophers edits you go easy. Now Sopher is pro rebel you said so yourself. To me you lean that way also. What do you think? Perhaps you can attempt to see the bias in the article. There are threads on it, some quite extensive. BTW I saw your post on my talk page. I know how the talk pages work. Your criteria for criticizing me is too narrow as I am discussing and replying at times to other editors general sort of posts in a way that ends what is becoming general discussion but does not disrespect them by ignoring them. You should know this, as its quite common. So do you maybe think you are being passive aggressive with your quite unneeded reminders of this and that? I know you would not the first editor to do this.Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You claim you know how talk pages work, but by re-posting the exact same content after it has been reverted your actions say otherwise. Since we are on user talk pages rather than the article, I am will to talk more about our personal biases if you wish. I would say that my most apparent editing POV is that of a skeptic. I do not view myself as "pro rebel", though in the case of Ghouta I tend to lend more credence to the "western" POV because it is coherent. My comparison, the various fragmented and mutually exclusive "pro Assad" POV's do not get as much traction with me personally because of the implausibility of the details - similar reasons to why I do not put much stock in most conspiracy theories.
 * I made what I an earnest and specific effort to discuss the NPOV in part of the article here, no one has replied yet. I am, personally, tired of generic "the article is not neutral" claims without backup.
 * I do feel like a number of behavioral guidelines are being glossed over and/or marginalized in this case, and I admit that I am not blameless here either. This is a contentious topic and everyone needs to be on their best behavior. My collapsing a toxic thread yesterday, was an attempt at moving discussion to productive areas. VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Look Im a bit of a sceptic also after stints in Western Military. Saw things, people died. I just want to get it right this time, not like Iraq. It just seems too convenient, again. I too have blurred civility rules here. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have close family that did 2 tours in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan. Based on his reports of the second tour, if you were in the second half of Iraq you witnessed sectarian violence very much like what is going on in Syria now. Most of the rebels are not our friends, but that does not mean that the Syrian government cannot be culpable here. We went into Iraq on the pretext of retribution for attacks well over a decade old. This is different. As I have mentioned elsewhere, all governments lie, but none lie 100% of the time. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta attack article, re: Mint Press News as "shia advocacy site"
Thanks for your feedback on Talk:Ghouta chemical attacks. Wondering if you could make the edits that you suggested? I must admit that my account is brand new, so I will have to wait days before I can edit the entry. I hope this doesn't sap my credibility; I stand by my argument in that thread as rock solid. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use the template to request changes in article until you are auto-confirmed. However, I am not willing to make this change at this time. There is not enough consensus to support the change I proposed, yet. Several edits recently have added and removed large swaths of the article, and I do not want to emulate this. Particularly for contentious articles, it is important to be methodical in how we approach changes. This has been formalized in that the article is under one-revert-rule restriction, which is more severe than the typical three revert rule that applies to all articles. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool, that works for me. I am a fan of the debate-leading-to-consensus approach. I have not participated in these discussions before, and it's all quite fascinating to me. Thank you. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

September 20, 2013
Your recent editing history at George Zimmerman‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green Cardamom (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the reminder Cardamom. You may not be aware, but fixing BLP violations is explicitly allowed per WP:3RR. I strongly recommend that you read it and WP:BLP. Additionally, there a clear consensus on the talk page not to include the mugshot - six editors have all mentioned that the image should not be included per WP:MUG. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the offer, in fact I read up on 3RR before posting here. 3RR exemption #7 says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." (emphasis added). It goes on to say "Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis added) Clearly this is a "controversial" dispute over whether BLP applies (since there is an ongoing BLP noticeboard discussion) and the correct decision would be not to to claim exemption #7, per the guideline. You're apparently so convinced of a BLP violation you can't see that other people disagree - you've unilaterally decided there is a BLP violation in order to justify your own 3RR exemption. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing other editors comment
VQuakr please dont remove my comments from the talk page of Ghouta chemical attacks or any other page. I have checked with an admin he said talking about you, 'it was not their place to remove your post from the talk page' Whack! Thank you. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never minded an occasional fish slapping, but in this case I have to disagree with Bbb23. I will continue to do my best to follow WP:TALK and WP:REFACTOR. If this comes up in the future and the discussion is not too heated, I will ask you to self-revert first though, out of respect for your reasonable request here. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

EW Warning
You have placed a warning about alleged edit warring on my talk page. I guess it is just a mistake, but if you are using any automated means for it, they certainly need to be checked. Thanks. --Emesik (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page with the diff that prompted the warning, thanks. VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Authenticity and Development Front
Hey, when you have a moment, could you take a look at this recently created short article? It has very few watchers. I assume you're more knowledgeable about the subject than I am, and it would be nice to have another set of eyes looking at it. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but a different admin declined it. I've made one reversion on the article, which now makes me WP:INVOLVED, although I have templated it as coming under the Syrian civil war general sanctions. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! I had a look at the available sources, and they seem pretty thin. I think it makes sense to delete and redirect unless the group gets more substantial coverage in the future; I started a deletion discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out. I'll watch the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Edit-athon!
Hope to see you there! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

An obvious false-flag attack
VQuakr, if you ever do actually violate 1RR, just claim that Syrian rebels hacked into Wikipedia to perform the revert; nobody can prove otherwise. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought, though WP:GOTHACKED tends to be met with little sympathy. In any case, beware of WP:SARCASM when emotions may run high... VQuakr (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox and web
Hello and glad to see your still at it ! A question, Who basically watches over and tends to the List of Whistleblowers ? You are a loyal and devoted building block of Wikipedia and others who's names I remember from years ago. I'm glad there are people like this in the world building an accurate data base of knowledge. Qui Tam Relator 20:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)

POV Header
VQuakr, how kind of you to always archive and take care of the talk page for the Web Sheriff article. I was just wondering why you did not think that the header: "Visitors Beware"  which the IP used to address his unsupported comments about some unnamed editor was a violation of WP:TALKNEW and left it visible on the talk page? Since your edit of the talk page was a few minutes after his edit, I assume you just didn't have time to consider this. Do you think the IP could have meant me? If so, what would have brought on his personal attack? My last comment on the talk page was made in July 2013 to disagree with aprock's deletion of material from the article due to his assertion that the sources were unreliable. I disagreed with this and gave good reasons according to WP:RS. That is perfectly acceptable behavior on a talk page. I actually haven't made an edit on the article since February 2013 and this is end of October 2013, so I don't think the IP was referring to me. But since it is against policy, I'm requesting that you remove the heading also. (As per WP:TALKNEW: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.") Thanks Agadant (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not have enough information to hypothesize about the IP's motivation or reasoning. I left the section header because headers are not routinely collapsed for navigational and practical reasons, and the header was not pejorative enough to merit refactoring. VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize you go way out of your way to take care of this article about a contentious and unpopular company. Most editors will not edit there for any reason. The header is perjorative as in deprecatory and merits refactoring in my opinion.   It probably will incite personal attacks against me or against the article. Why do you not think so? "Visitors Beware" seems to be rather extreme for any talk page to carry and hope to remain NPOV? I can remove it, if you prefer. Thanks Agadant (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly about it, fine. I took a swag at a rephrasing. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks okay. Remember when you used to think I had ownership problems on the article? And all I really am concerned with is if Wikipedia policies are being applied fairly to all articles, even this one. His concerns are without merit, if he means me, as I haven't edited there for 8 months and didn't even revert aprock's edit that I disagreed with. So that should be apparent to anyone who checks it out! Thank you for changing it. Agadant (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

FA of Waveguide filter
The previous FA nomination of this article was archived without promotion due to a lack of supporters (no one actually opposed either). As you have previously taken an interest in the article would you please take a look. If you think it is up to scratch you can support at Featured article candidates/Waveguide filter/archive2.  Spinning Spark  17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon in Vancouver, WA
''You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of WikiProjectOregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello VQUaker
VQuaker I want to ask you two questions. Is there anyway to prevent the sandbox from showing up on the Internet while compiling the story ? Who is the caretaker of The Lost of Whistleblowers ? Thank you for your ear time and patience. Qui Tam Relator 04:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qui Tam Relator (talk • contribs)
 * Greetings, Qui Tam. No, anything on any portion of Wikipedia is immediately, and usually permanently, viewable from the internet. If you want to draft in total privacy I suggest using a text editor; I think there may be some Wiki-markup compatible text editors available online as well. As for the second question, since this is a volunteer project there is no organized "you please watch these pages" sort of system. So the answer is, whoever shows interest. VQuakr (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 (Typhoon Haiyan)
Hi. I'm sorry that I did not summarized my edit. What I did id just changed all the information on Typhoon Haiyan to Typhoon Haiyan (2013). Is that all right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste moves are rarely the correct course of action, and since that article had just been moved this was a form of edit warring. If you disagree with the location of the article, the correct course of action is to start a page move discussion. VQuakr (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Geoffrey Landis
Geoffrey A. Landis: Laser-powered Interstellar Probe
 * Please see WP:SPS: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. It did not look to me to be a sufficiently rigorous source for the subject matter, but on second look I see the web page was written very, very early in the life of the internet so perhaps looks can be deceiving. Feel free to revert if you felt I was too hasty. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One more thought - if you do re-add this to the articles, please make clear that this is a future-technology concept as opposed to a practical idea. VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * - agree? Cheers! Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources Noticeboard notification
A discussion you have participated in, (Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive 13) has been brought to the Reliable sources Noticeboard (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled permission request
Thanks so much, this made my day! :] Jatlas (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mint Press News Syria crisis reporting and company description
VQaker, the information you keep reverting back to on the Mint Press News page is not the latest information. The company description is not accurate, the sources linked are part of a smear and are not reliable, and there is new information regarding the Syria reporting which has been added. If there is something missing please advice. 24 November 2013 MajorBluff99  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorbluff99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Majorbluff99, thank you for your reply. Statements presented as fact such as "part of a smear" are quite remarkable and need stellar sourcing, and the statements in the article need to be attributed to the source rather than presented as fact. As noted, globalresearch.ca is an unreliable source for basically anything, and other statements you added to the article were actually contradicted by the source you provided. Please use the article talk page to discuss rather than edit warring. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Alaska Airlines Flight 779 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alaska Airlines Flight 779 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alaska Airlines Flight 779 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Courtesy notification as you de-PRODded this article recently. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû  (blah?) 03:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

MintPress News Editor Help
Hi VQaker, I noticed you are an editor that has worked on and commented on the page MintPress News. The user sayerslle is insisting on attacking the website and citing adhominmen attacks to the editor as reliable sources. While I have attempted to rationalize with that user and give a "neutral" perspective on the website, the sayerslle user repeatedly undoes all changes. Can you help users on this page reach a consensus? You can read all my comments on the talk page. Thanks in advance for your help. chicagoismyhomeie (talk) 4:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message. I will go ahead and reply on your talk page, and will watch for further replies there. VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert
Cen you please explain your recent revert?

Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made several. Of which page are you thinking? VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * At Aruchavank. I have restored the correct Armenian pronunciation. Anyway, I will not enter into an edit war. Do whatever you want but at least show some respect. I will quit here. Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your previous edit was reverted. You need to discuss on the talk page rather than re-reverting without discussion. This was the reason for the revert. If you wish, you can review "Bold, revert, discuss" for a more substantial treatment of the concept. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again you made another revert at Zoravar Church... Please show some respect. Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Same reason. I could say the same to you, Zyzzzzzy. Show some "respect" and stop repeating edits that have been reverted. VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was expecting such an answer in your American way of making fun of others. I have explained the changes I made, but again and again you showed disrespect. I will not discuss with you anymore. Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Zyzzzzzy, please don't edit war. Take things up on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, don't worry, I'm not into edit war at all... I have many other important issues in my life to chase for. Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Hassan Abdalla page
Hello. Thanks for the help on the page and for cleaning it up. I've added new citations and references. primary, secondary and tertiary and kept it as factual as possible. my bad to begin with, hadn't thoroughly read the writing guidelines. Now, after its been shortened, is it ok to remove some of the tags on top of the page? i'm still working on more text to add, which u would do me a favor by checking and editing to make sure it meets the guidelines. Thanks. 197.223.102.63 (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Get your cameras ready! Christmas in Oregon and PDX Pods
This month, WikiProject Oregon features two photo campaigns:
 * PDX Pods
 * Christmas in Oregon

The concept is simple: upload photos of these two topics and share your work! Whether you upload one or one hundred, these images will help capture the culture of our state and illustrate Wikimedia projects. Have fun, and happy holiday season! ''You are receiving this because you are listed as an active member of WikiProject Oregon or WikiProject Washington. This message was delivered on behalf of Meetup/Portland by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Riel (band) page
Hi VQuakr! Sorry I did erase the message, I'm new here on wikipedia and did'nt knew exactly how to work it out. This page is for a real cult argentinian band that has a lot of appreciation around the world, it is a very special and unique band. You can verify it through the links and reviews on the article. With time I could add some more reviews, references and missing data. I'm a big Riel fan, that's the reason of my username and the creation of this article. You told me about entering the article in the music categories. How should I do that? And by the way, the minor edits, were actually real minor edits, sorry if I did many of them. Hope everything's fine with this. Anything else please tell me or if you can help me work this out I will appreciate it. Thank you very much.

200.125.66.63 (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages
Talk pages are not articles, same rules don't apply. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blatantly incorrect. VQuakr (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Show me anything that supports your removal of talk page comments. I will have to revert your misguided edits, but I'll wait until more sources are published on this. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Vibroacoustic Therapy
Hi VQuakr... Thanks for the message... both articles were created by me... some admins from wiki are deleting the old one - commenting wrong reasons every time - so I created a new... please go ahead and delete one... If they delete the old one again - I give up... I have no time for the stupidity... They are confusing medicine with health and wellness... I gave enough references... Universities are teaching vibroacoustic therapy... hospitals are using it for more than 30 years all around the world... Cyrinus (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any content needs to rely on reliable sources, and creating another article under another title to avoid POV scrutiny is a "POV fork" and not allowed. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, so rather than insulting other editors and trying to force your ideas through, how about engaging the concerns in a constructive manner? VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear Vibroacoustic stimulation was written by myself over 3 years ago. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 04:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the initial confusion when I saw this come up at New Page Patrol I may have missed that the VAS article was old and had been overwritten. I apologize! VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This may help:

Cyrinus (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fibromyalgia Study: http://www.thesoundtherapycentre.com/fibromyalgia-study.html
 * Rett Syndrom: http://rettcenter.se/en/rettsyndrome/treatment/music.htm
 * Vibrac Center: http://www.vibrac.fi/tagit/vibrac-centre
 * None of these are reliable sources as outlined at WP:MEDRS. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the reference list and abstract on my talk page -- Cyrinus (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have added more references - including a few from PubMed. I will modify the article with more references (PubMed, Universities, FDA etc) - I assume that is more than enough to prove VAT is not a fringe theory and it is practiced many years similar to music therapy under allied health profession. Part of music therapy degree program in Finland and Canada. Cyrinus (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

VAT
I have already provided many secondary sources. I posted Olav's explanation just for others who like to understand the subject, especially the difference between music therapy. please click on my talk link. several reliable secondary sources added. I assume that is what you are looking for. I will add more from Canadaian universities soon. Cyrinus (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, please focus on quality, not quantity. None of the sources you have presented so far meet our requirements for reliability. VQuakr (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I added these to ref list. I will modify and post the article with proper references again. I assume PubMed, FDA and Universities are reliable secondary sources... I will add more references with the article... Happy Holidays!!!
 * Low Frequency Sound Stimualtion/Therapy


 * LFSS


 * Norlander T, Sandholm C, Anfelt O. The physioacoustic method and the creative process.1998.PubMed


 * King LK, Almeida QJ, Ahonen H. Short-term effects of vibration therapy on motor impairments in Parkinson's disease. 2009. PubMed


 * van Os AJ, Aziz L, Schalkwijk D, Schols JM, de Bie RA. Effectiveness of Physio Acoustic Sound (PAS) therapy in demented nursing home residents with nocturnal restlessness: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. 2012. PubMed Cyrinus (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have been asked, repeatedly, to focus on WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. A study protocol on Pubmed is not even close, and the rest are indistinguishable from link spam. Sheesh. VQuakr (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All references posted are compliant with WP:MEDRS. reference list I provided are reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge and published in reputable medical journals (including PubMed), academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies including universities from Finland and Canada. I am not promoting any new concept - VAT is used in hospitals for more than 30 years. Approved by the FDA in the USA and three medical claims are allowed: It improves blood circulation, reduces pain and relaxes muscles where applied.Cyrinus (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If those links are spam - most of the wiki articles have spam links too... I will edit the content with these references and post it soon. Cyrinus (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of threatening and giving last warnings - please tell me what are the spam links and I will remove it. The url you mentioned is not my site and it is from a university. reputable one according to WP:MEDRS guidelines. Cyrinus (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

VAT/CT
Why are you deleting these two therapy pages - saying spam and post warning on my user talk page. Please explain. Cyrinus (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN3
Please don't remove reports from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring unless they are obviously frivolous (that is, there are no reverts on the page and you can't find the page the user meant to report) or vandalism. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=586601134&oldid=586601030 this] case there were two reverts so it needed to be looked at and decided by an admin (and stay there). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Roger Wilco. VQuakr (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing David John Farmer (living person) page
Hi VQuakr. We have fixed the sources so that there are reliable secondary sources. Previously, the page was going to be taken down on 15 December. Is that still the case? We are modifying the tone. Thank you VQuakr.Marsqu (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what you mean by the plural "we" in this context? VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am a student at Virginia Commonwealth University. I am working with another student to fix Dr. Farmer's Wikipedia page.Marsqu (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the clarification. Please bear in mind that each person should have their own account per our account policy. The Farmer page is not currently suffering from any issues likely to result in its deletion, so feel free to keep working at it at your own pace. In general, the tone on that article is very poor (it reads like a promotion piece or a CV rather than a dispassionate encyclopedia article, so there is still much room for improvement. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback VQuakr! Marsqu (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.140.170 (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Hi VQuakr. I would like to add the list of publications of Dr. Farmer, is that possible? or is there any issue with that? I made a list the first time I drafted the page but then it got deleted, I could not understand why. Thank you for your help! Marsqu (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsqu (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed it because it was much, much too long. This is an encyclopedia written in summary prose, not an exhaustive list. I suggest choosing his five most influential, notable, and/or representative publications and listing them in the article. If someone wants an exhaustive list, we should provide a link to his CV in the external links section so the information will be easy to find off-Wiki. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr! I will do as you suggest! Marsqu (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Forgot to mention that I chose to delete the info box because I did not have enough information to add, I might add it later on. Thanks for helping though! Marsqu (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits?
You keep reverting my edits on Young Earth creationism, despite that my views are supported by scientific evidence, including the Bible and numerous scientific essays. I understand that your probably only trying to help, but what's written in an encyclopedia article should be true and not pseudo-scientific claims at odds with the evidence, and besides, this is an article on creationism so it should be written from a creationist point of view, don't you agree, otherwise the view of the encyclopedia is not neutral overall because not all view are covered, if you deny the reality of the scientific facts that I preach you must at least admit this. AmericaTheGreatest (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to review the policy on reliable sources. There also is a relevant, but short FAQ at Talk:Creationism. If you still have concerns feel free to raise them on the article talk page at Talk:Young Earth creationism, but I find it hard to believe that you are unaware that the Bible is not recognized as an authoritative publication by the scientific community. VQuakr (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but just because something isn't accepted by the scientific community doesn't mean that it isn't scientific. Is there a way that I can add a creaionism viewpoint without violating Wikipedia's policies? I want all views to be represented, and it looks like only one viewpoint is represented in that article. I'll have you know that I attended college at a good university where a certified engineer taught me the basics of cration science, and he had written two books. Maybe I'll look them up and add the to the article as reliable sources? He is a real scientist AmericaTheGreatest (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Our policy on "representing everyone" is included in our policy on neutral point of view, in particular, see the "Religion" subsection. The short answer is no, you are not going to be allowed to represent the creation narrative as an accepted theory. VQuakr (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Delta Electronics
Hi,

Good job generally, on reverting promotional style editing. But you just reverted one of mine on Delta Electronics that wasn't. The company is widely noted in the enthusiast computing arena for its OEM products, in more than one area, and to represent that (in a reasonable tone) is factual, neutral and multiple-cited.

Would you recheck your revert and consider reinstating the edit or discussing? Thank you :) FT2 (Talk 10:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the heads up. I didn't notice that the phrase "ridiculously awesome" was a quote, and that pretty much lost me. I have self-reverted the removal. VQuakr (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Tsunami fish
I enjoyed reading your article creation at Tsunami fish. I believe it has the potential to be posted at WP:DYK on the Main page of English Wikipedia. Considering that, it is a few characters (~85 characters) short of the 1,500 character requirement. Also, according to this MSNBC article, the fish may have been deposited in the boat near Hawaii so it's not certain they really came from Japan. If you add this possibility to the article, it will have the required length and interesting "hook" to qualify.

Remember, you have 5 days from article creation to nominate it. If you're not interested please let me know so that I might nominate it myself. Thanks! Gilliam (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note! Time permitting, I will try to nominate it tomorrow. I can add a blurb about the theory of the fish being picked up in Hawaii, though became less likely to be actually the case once the age of all five fish was found to correlate with the time of the tsunami. If you wanted to beat me to the punch, feel free! VQuakr (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)