User talk:VQuakr

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

You are invited!

• Tuesday, May 12, 2015: Wikipedia Women's Health Information Edit-a-thon – 1 to 4pm
• Wikipedia Edit-a-thon hosted by OHSU's Center for Women's Health in honor of National Women's Health Week
• Location: Biomedical Information Communications Center (3280 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239)
• This edit-a-thon is intended to address some of these important differences and to generally improve women’s health information in key articles and topics. Areas for improvement have been identified in cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please post to the event page.

Thanks,

Another Believer

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

Regarding the kunduz hospital air strike / International humanitarian law

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

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

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

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

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

The source does not mention Kunduz. It is not usable for analysis of the Kunduz attack. Read WP:CIVIL please. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source tells that every, and that means every armed conflict falls under GC IV, if that does not include Kunduz, than the USA can not be participant of a armed conflict in Afghanistan and than it could not have attacked the hospital. Your argument with collapsing said use a secondary source and I used a secondary source, so I revert your collapse.Jochum (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You are synthesizing the connection yourself. Do not analyze sources this way. Instead use analysis by sources specific to Kunduz (which by definition will be published after the attack). VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I bet you have not even bothered to read what I wrote. That is the guy who wrote the commentary The man who wrote the rules of war. As the attack has already happened I have a difficulty to understand how we could be more after the attack. And all the same, I do not make a judgement, I talk about what rules apply and that does not change with time.Jochum (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bet all you want. The article you linked was written 15 years ago and is about a commentary written 50 years prior to that. Kunduz occurred this year. Sources about the Kunduz attack will have been written since the attack occurred. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left some time now when I tried to put into the article what the Fourth Geneva Convention says about the attack of a signer nation of the said convention. I am still of the opinion that I am right and you are wrong. Your argument that the secondary source, the original commentary to the 4GC would be too old, is nonsensical. It is exactly what you ask of an legal commentary, original intent with producing the convention. If you find a newer one producing a different view, produce it. The argument that no news article or other secondary source shows that THIS and this only attack on a hospital falls under the 4GC, is again nonsensical. If a renowned secondary source tells, that every armed conflict a signer nation is involved in falls under the 4GC, than every includes this armed conflict.85.246.105.55 (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The commentary to the 4GC was written prior to Kunduz. By definition, it was not written about Kunduz. There has been lots of legal analysis done about the attack, so we will use those. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, if you want to look at the rules, it would be idiotic to talk about rules that are formed after something happened, the rules are set and you judge according to the rules in place when something happens and those rules are in this case written in the 4GC. You seem to be desperate to not talk about the rules. How does anybody plan anything, depends on anything if the rulebook can be changed after the fact.Jochum (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am having trouble parsing this into anything meaningful. VQuakr (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That I do understand. If you do not want to talk about the rules that apply in war and want to make new rules after the fact, fitting to your needs after the fact, I can very well understand that you do not want to talk about the rules of war. That does not change the fact that there are rules in place that MSF should have been able to rely on and the USA military should have operated according to. I well understand that that is quite uncomfortable to contemplate. And that is why you like to censor any mentioning of the rules that apply.Jochum (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I am having trouble parsing it because it is badly written not because you have shattered my worldview. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

autocite

hello just trying to understand.the change that autocross is making. the article has 17 references. but.not.certain why they.are.dropped when autocite is applied Prospectresearch (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Banned editor

a 'banned editor', yes, but a good faith editor , just got a shorter tolerance level for obvious pov pushers and idiots than you. good luck, it seems an awful uphill battle for intelligent people , wikipedia , sometimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayerslle (talk • contribs)

It goes with the territory of editing in current events (not that I am endorsing your characterization of other editors). But you can't have it both ways: if you want to edit here, you need to do so in a way that does not involve block evasion and remaining unblocked requires, in part, behaving civilly with others even if they irk you from time to time. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Revert

If he has another run-in again before February 1st I'll revert it again. Thanks :) --RThompson82 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

...or you could discuss on the talk page. Geez. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Campus sexual assault. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

@TransporterMan: thank you for the ping. I do not think my participation in this one is necessary as my only contribution was reverting a change to the lede that did not summarize content in the body. My concerns, [1], [2] are not really central to the larger dispute and are easily incorporated into any solution. Please feel free to ping me again if you think additional input would be helpful. VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Did you know?

A new, simpler system for editing will offer a single Edit button. Once the page has opened, you can switch back and forth between visual and wikitext editing.

If you prefer having separate edit buttons, then you can set that option in your preferences, either in a pop-up dialog the next time you open the visual editor, or by going to Special:Preferences and choosing the setting that you want:

The current plan is for the default setting to have the Edit button open the editing environment you used most recently.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs and expanded the mathematics formula tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for languages such as Japanese and Arabic, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.

Recent improvements

You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing.

The LaTeX mathematics formula editor has been significantly expanded. (T118616) You can see the formula as you change the LaTeX code. You can click buttons to insert the correct LaTeX code for many symbols.

Future changes

The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab, like the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as a cookie for logged-out users and as an account preference for logged-in editors. Logged-in editors will be able to set a default editor in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences in the drop-down menu about "Editing mode:".

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the following Wikipedias in early 2016: Amharic, Buginese, Min Dong, Cree, Manx, Hakka, Armenian, Georgian, Pontic, Serbo-Croatian, Tigrinya, Mingrelian, Zhuang, and Min Nan. (T116523) Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. The developers would like to know how well it works. Please tell them what kind of computer, web browser, and keyboard you are using.

In 2016, the feedback pages for the visual editor on many Wikipedias will be redirected to mediawiki.org. (T92661)

Testing opportunities

• Please try the new system for the single edit tab on test2.wikipedia.org. You can edit while logged out to see how it works for logged-out editors, or you can create a separate account to be able to set your account's preferences. Please share your thoughts about the single edit tab system at the feedback topic on mediawiki.org or sign up for formal user research (type "single edit tab" in the question about other areas you're interested in). The new system has not been finalized, and your feedback can affect the outcome. The team particularly wants your thoughts about the options in Special:Preferences. The current choices in Special:Preferences are:
  • Remember my last editor,
  • Always give me the visual editor if possible, 
  • Always give me the source editor, and 
  • Show me both editor tabs.  (This is the current state for people using the visual editor. None of these options will be visible if you have disabled the visual editor in your preferences at that wiki.)
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help, and report it on Phabricator (Korean - Japanese) or on Wikipedia (Korean - Japanese).

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

Whatamidoing (WMF), 00:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your determination and dedication to help the encyclopedia grow. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Jim Carter submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I'm pleased to nominate VQuakr to be Editor of the Week for his outstanding ability of helping new editors. He is extremely well versed in deletion policy and extraordinary in NPP related works. With over 26k edits, I find him to be one of the few unsung heroes of Wikipedia, who's contributions make internet not suck. I'm really in-debt of this particular editor, personally. He is one of those editor who made "Jim Carter" from "Rudra john cena". If they were not around, I would have never survived on Wikipedia. I think, this hero certainly deserve recognition for his many efforts to improve the 'pedia.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk 14:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)