User talk:VQuakr

Archives

/Archives/2009 /Archives/2010 /Archives/2011

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Dear VQuakr,

You recently flagged the page about BeeBole.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeeBole.com) with the followings:

• It needs additional references or sources for verification.
• The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed.
• It may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
• Its external links may not comply with Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.

Could you please be more specific about the changes to be made?

Even after reading the Wikipedia documentation, I am not sure about the links/parts to be changed.

Thank you for your help.

Kind regards,

Yves Hiernaux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yves Hiernaux (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will respond with some more specific feedback on the article talk page. However, I also have some concerns about your relationship with the company and the multiple new accounts that have been involved with the article and some related pages. I will give more detail on your user talk page; can you please respond either on your talk page or here with some clarification? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it again. Don't expect a fast or easy answer. When I took it to ANI before, not much got accomplished.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem that lends itself to a fast or easy solution. I would be inclined to ignore it if they confined their warring to one or two articles, but they are disrupting a significant chunk of the topic. Anyways, thanks for having another look! VQuakr (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I followed this back from KWW, just wanted to say sorry if I had helped diminish your experience here, it wasn't my intention to do so. V7-sport (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly never thought that you doing anything personally against me. The problem is that your editing style is disrupting everyone else. On a side note, can you please consider archiving comments on your talk page rather than deleting them? VQuakr (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scaling back my interaction with that editor and haven't been edit-warring. It would be great if other editors of good faith could look over some of his contributions as he has a penchant for using this site to propagandize and has no qualms about mischaracterizing what his sources say.

Re. the archive, I had been archiving the talk page but somewhere along the line I lost the archive links. (You are corresponding with someone who not only still has a VCR, but it is still blinking 12:00, 12:00, 12:00, 12:00...) At any rate, I've become a fan of deleting the backlog. If you need help finding something let me know. V7-sport (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! Sorry, but yes, a quick look at your recent contributions confirms that you have been edit warring. As near as I can tell you are still not clear on the point that you do not have to be in technical violation of the 3RR to be edit warring. And yes, I understand that there are other editors involved here and I do not want you to feel singled out but you do seem to be the common factor here. Whatever you want to call it, what I care about is the disruption to the articles. No real improvement can be made to articles with so many reverts flying around. VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my best to behave here. Today I had someone who thought they smelled blood in the water and took advantage of it. Yes, I realize that you don't need to be in technical violation of the 3RR to be edit warring. What I am also observing is that when someone reverts me before I can get to the talk page to explain the reasoning behind the edits I made (again) they don't wind up with anyone concerned as to whether or not they are edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a dispute going on at the named page as you know. Why are you only going after one of the editors, rather than both? From what I see BelloWello (talk) also may have violated 3RR. This dispute has been going on for a while and should probably go into dispute resolution rather than violation reports.Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw on the edit history, you were up against the 3RR and BellowWello was not. If I misinterpreted the editing history, feel free to file an edit warring report. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union to have a look at Milan Orlovic, Marko Kapor, Miladin Zivanov, Milan Rastovac, Srdjan Nikolic, Marko Vukovic & Predrag Vranes (see [1]) to see if they meet WP:NSPORTS#Rugby_union. Mtking (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. VQuakr (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. My question has to do with your preference for footnotes. Can you illustrate this or direct me to a template that conforms with your request? I believe the other matters have been addressed conclusively. Either way, please let me know. Thanks. Oulipo Oui (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, just wrap the citation in <ref> and </ref> at the start and end of the citation to creation a footnote. More information can be found at WP:CITE. Note that the citation style is a minor issue compared with the notability concerns, see WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I respectfully disagree that any of the issues so far have been resolved, please feel free to discuss at Talk:Janos_Nyiri where I started a new section on the subject. VQuakr (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your objections, VQuakr. But if I am at risk of being repeatedly overruled or deleted, or blocked, or accused of vandalism or COI etcetera, maybe I should just completely withdraw the article? That would be very disappointing, But it seems that you really do not like the article, VQuakr. Would you prefer that the contribution was just taken down and that there be no biography of Janos Nyiri on Wikipedia at all? There are more than 20 sources cited, and cross-references to internal as well as external links. The Times and Sunday Times articles were removed because of concerns, rightly or wrongly, that there may have been some kind of copyright infringement. The Amazon, Google, print media and press citations are supplied, with links where appropriate. Likewise French, Hungarian and German language sources. It all seems increasingly odd, except for the recurring issue of consistent Wikipedia citation and source styles, but it is proving to be rather a laborious and sadly fruitless process, overall. Please advise what you recommend, VQuakr, regarding further action to be taken on this article, if indeed there is any further action to be taken at all. Thanks. Oulipo Oui (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to address VQuakr's continuing objections regarding Wikipedia article subject and content on biography of Janos Nyiri/Notability, Verifiability, Objectivity, etc.

Thank you again, VQuakr, for your detailed guidance and help. Here is Wikipedia's policy regarding Notability:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5]

I think these matters are satisfied by the following 116,000 hits on Google: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=janos+nyiri&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Likewise, the verifiability and sources issues. If however, these sources are not satisfactory, and the publications listed within the article as well as in the references and footnotes do not suffice, I beg to know what, if anything, will be considered satisfactory. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you feel that your objections simply cannot be overcome, or that the article itself is a waste of my time, or yours.

With thanks.Oulipo Oui (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have also posted at Talk:Janos Nyiri; let's centralize our discussion there. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VQuakr, thank you for your welcoming words and patience with my beginners mistakes. I didn't realize I removed maintenance templates, it wasn't my intention at all, sorry for that. In response to them I added several references to third-party sources (national and art press). What else would you recommend ? Also I have seen that a picture would be requested for the quality of the article. Should I engage in this lengthy quest at this point ? Dubgaet (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see any references in the article, except from Arpais.com (a primary source) if these are reprints, we should reference the original publications and can mention that they are archived at the artist's site. For the photo, yes, we like images. To be usable on Wikipedia, the photo would need to be licensed under a free-use license or released into the public domain by the copyright holder (usually the person who took the image). VQuakr (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. My references refer to pdf's of the original press articles I only found on the artist's site and that aren't online anymore. I will reread the instructions for proper source citation and will then mention they're archived on the artist's site as you suggest. Then I'll start searching for a picture of the person. Thank you for your advice.Dubgaet (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubgaet (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the {{Cite web}} template to cite sources if you wish; it has an archived=... function that would simplify the citation and archived location data entry. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VQuakr, I used Cite web template to cite sources as you recommended. I hope I did it the right way. Cheers.Dubgaet (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will be slower to do that next time! Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....can't an editor have a bad day? :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not claiming any superiority here. :P NPP's just gotta keep each other honest; it can get tempting to over-speedy. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warning. However, I am not sure how to proceed with the issue: I had explained the cause of my edits, carefully choosing to use NPOV terms, but another user finds this unacceptable. Unflavoured (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting discussion on the talk page is a good step; I see you have done that. Additional steps you could consider, particularly if talk you feel you have reached an impasse after a good faith effort, would be to make a post at the NPOV noticeboard or to pursue dispute resolution. Please let me know if you would like help. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VQaker--My article has multiple issues, and I would like to know what I can do to correct these issues! Thank you so much for your assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesofbabylon (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggest starting with the page on creating your first article. Given your obvious WP:COI with the subject, you may find it very difficult to write a neutral article about something with which you are so close. The next thing to do would be to purge out all the peacock terms that compromise the article, and reference statements in the article. Contentious or non-neutral statements should be referenced in reliable, secondary sources (which are needed anyways to show the subject is notable. The other items in the multiple issues tag can wait until those are resolved. VQuakr (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VQaker. Thanks for letting me know about the David Muhlenfeld article, although at the time I was not finished. I have made edits to the article accordingly, in regards to what you said. Hopefully enough has been done for the removal of the deletion proposal on the article. Thank you! Connormlh (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the BLP Prod since there is a source now. I am not really convinced that this person meets WP:CREATIVE, though. VQuakr (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the summary when I saved it that it was UNFINISHED and I was still working on it. dont be so quick to jump on people please. Panderoona (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a tag, I am not jumping on anyone. If you are uncomfortable with people tagging articles that are incomplete, feel free to work on it in your user space and move it to article space when it is ready. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here a while now but only worked on very small articles and been relatively undisturbed. Im annoyed because I had written a fair bit and lost it all because of the edit conflict. I dont know how to resolve that because Im new, hence my irritation. I have found a ref template to say Im working on it - theres more to say about this particular village than I have worked on previously, and I dont want to get it wrong, or lose it. Thanks. Panderoona (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you lost some work, that must be frustrating. When the edit conflict window comes up after you press "save", your contributions can be found at the bottom of the screen. You can just copy the portion you added and paste it into the appropriate section above to save your work. The work you lost might still be available in your browsing history. Please note that even if you just created an article, you do not own it, though. VQuakr (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im well aware of that - I just wanted to be able to work on it without losing info. I rewrote it. Its finished now if you want to add /change/discuss please do. Panderoona (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, welcoming me (thanks), "one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media."

I'm not aware that any of my few edits to articles, which have only been to Energy Catalyzer, violate this policy in any way, everything was sourced, and I only restored reliably sourced material that had been removed, to my knowledge. Could you point to what you are seeing? --EnergyNeutral (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your lack of response, shall I assume that it was simply an error? Thanks. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. Again, welcome! The specific edit that led me to give you a greeting that included reference to the NPOV policy was this one. Extraordinary claims should be support by strong evidence, particularly since at least one other editor had expressed concern about this section. The one source supporting this section was more or less reporting news, and this section did not, in my opinion, adequate reflect that. Also note that there are, globally, many things reported in reliable sources that, for various reasons, still do not need to be included in a Wikipedia article (ie - consensus on what content should be included for editorial reasons, established on the talk page, is also important). Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a complex judgment here. I was simply reverting another editor who had removed standing text, with this edit summary: (→18 hour test: removed this section -- it is sourced to an online newspapery source, this test was explicitly NOT peer reviewed.) My edit summary was (Undid revision 429963649 by Moishe Rosenbaum (talk)Peer-reviewed source not required, Ny Teknik is reliable source for news.) There is no "science" in this section, only a news report, including the attributed opinion of a physicist. So removal of text on the basis of lack of peer review was improper. (And "newspapery source" was not accurate, this is a technology magazine, with highly knowledgeable reporters -- and skeptical, overall, to boot!) With media sources, we rely on editorial review. There were indeed problems with that section, and I went on to edit it extensively, after it was restored by another editor. See if you like it better now, but do first read the section before it, which I also just revised to balance and clarify, which establishes the context for the February test. That prior section had a lot of interesting material that wasn't reliably sourced, which I removed. Thanks for working to maintain Wikipedia neutrality. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that the "welcome, here is the policy on NPOV" is very mild way of letting a new editor know about a policy. I did not know if you were aware the policy even existed; I think it is safe to say that you are now aware of it. Happy editing, and let me know if you have any questions! VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, appreciated, thanks. --EnergyNeutral (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]