User Talk:QEDK
Get User Talk:QEDK essential facts below. View Videos or join the User Talk:QEDK discussion. Add User Talk:QEDK to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
User Talk:QEDK

10:24, 2 April 2020 IST [refresh]
Quellus letter Q.png

qedk

ITN recognition for North East Delhi riots

Ambox current red.svgOn 26 February 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article North East Delhi riots, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. -->>>-DBigXray? 10:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Would not have been possible without your helping hand to update this.-->>>-DBigXray? 10:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, DBigXray. --qedk (t ? c) 13:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i have seen your edits about Delhi special India it looks biased user with DBigXray. can check his profile says communists then how can he send real sources to Wikipedia. There is so many news websites please check it out and insert some real sources. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokbhamla (talk o contribs) 18:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page un-protection

Hi QEDK, Please unprotect the article talk page. People should be able to post suggestion. Vandalism and BLP Vios can be removed easily. Blocking the talk simply floods the OTRS and shifts to other places. We should keep the page related comments at one place. >>>-DBigXray? 12:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El C, What is your opinion ? With so many talk page watchers , the talk page disruption is manageable IMHO, so I asked. Looks like QEDK is offline. (I also posted on WP:RFPP -->>>-DBigXray? 12:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@DBigXray: agreed. I have lifted the protection. QEDK, let's hold off on it until things get really bad again (like something along the lines of the insanity we saw the day before yesterday). El_C 12:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. -->>>-DBigXray? 12:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

AE ban

Can you give a summary of why I was banned? If you were judging consensus or whatever. Not sure how AE works. Maybe you just count votes. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I have appealed. popflock.com Resource: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Peregrine_Fisher Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Never mind. I guess I f'd up. I'm taking this page of my watchlist, so happy travels! Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hate to do this to you, but never mind the never mind. Someone else was curious about the rational, and I'll admit I'm also still currious. Sorry to jerk you around like that. I hate when people do that to me. This page is back on my watchlist. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Peregrine Fisher: Per AE procedures: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or ... (emphasis mine) is needed. At the time of my closure, five uninvolved administrators had signified a willingness that topic-banning you from the area was necessary, I concurred with it and carried out the closure per the consensus, that's all. I notice that you attempted to appeal it as soon as it was placed, that's generally a bad move (I am saying this as someone who has been here for ~10 years), no appeals placed with consensus are ever repealed instantly, if it was a unilateral administrator sanction, sure, otherwise, close to impossible (noting this was per AE discussion and not an unilateral sanction on my part). Now, if you do not violate your topic ban (please note that no edits means none, not only edits to articles/discussions) for the next 6 months, your appeal will definitely be successful, if you still feel this sanction was placed in error, you can appeal at ARCA or AN, noting ofcourse it might result in stricter sanctions with longer durations of appeal (I do not intend this as a chilling effect, just experience of how it usually goes). Hope I could clarify it for you. Best, qedk (t ? c) 06:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

redent. What's ARCA? haven't heard of that. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher: See WP:ARCA. It's technically the last court of appeal (apart from AN) for enforcement blocks or sanctions, apart from filing a case. --qedk (t ? c) 09:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This is not a question of procedures. The consensus on WP:AE is not required for making any sanctions. If I understand correctly, user Peregrine Fisher has absolutely no idea why he was topic banned. Was it because he was making personal attacks on other users (I am not saying he did, this is just an example)? Or there is another reason like WP:TE? If there is a reason, I think user Peregrine Fisher needs an explanation with diffs what they did wrong. This is not clear for me as well because the only diff admins discussed in their section on WP:AE was this diff. Was that the reason for the topic ban? My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: You're mixing up unilateral discretionary sanctions vs. other discretionary sanctions. Unilateral DS needs a concrete rationale to be imposed and can be imposed upto one year, there's no such limit of sanctions imposed via consensus at AE, think of it as a normal discussion to sanction any editor except it is under the ambit of arbitration enforcement. Either way, my understanding of the consensus was that Peregrine Fisher engaged in behaviour against WP:NPOV (tendentious editing) in the topic area of R&I, which was also evidenced in their comment at JJE's RfB, which was verging on disruptive. Further noting, consensus of uninvolved administrators are taken into account at AE, which was fairly evident. --qedk (t ? c) 16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC): revised 17:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. In theory, the user could make an argument that you and others were not uninvolved admins because you had an argument with him on this page, and his comments precisely on this page were used as a justification of his topic ban. However, I recommended him a different course of action [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: Neither me nor any of the other administrators at the AE section had anything to do with Peregrine Fisher at JJE's RfB, I have no idea what you're talking about. --qedk (t ? c) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, you did comment in this discussion many times in a certain way. Peregrine Fisher was the first contributor who commented in an opposite way in this discussion. You did notice his comment and did not like it (according to your own statement above). In my opinion, that constituted involvement per WP:Uninvolved, especially when you cite his comment on this page as a reason for the sanction, but his comment is merely an expression of his opinion. Perhaps you should undo your sanction. But I can be wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: The first time PF's vote came into my attention was at AE. Either way, this really has nothing to do with the fact that it was a vote at JJE's RfB but rather than the endless R&I POV-pushing that PF engaged in, even at that RfB. You should re-read WP:INVOLVED, if administrators had to stay out of sanctioning every editor they've seen around, or voted with, or commented on the same page, there would be no one left to sanction. You're misconstruing WP:INVOLVEDness as any interaction but it only applies to situations where there's a certain bias, if I had an argument regarding TE at their TP for example, I would be involved, either way, my point is I was not involved, I won't be removing the sanction (again as I've said, it was imposed per consensus). Best, qedk (t ? c) 20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I would not comment more on "involved", but perhaps that user should indeed stay away of this subject. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification after coming here from Bish's talk: all discretionary sanctions are unilateral, even if taken based on AE consensus. Other administrators may agree with it, and AE provides the opportunity for feedback, but it is still intentionally the action of one person, and no different than an AE sanction you've done on your own. Typically, however, sanctions that take place based on an AE request aren't appealed there since they were already there. That's the main difference. All discretionary sanctions, except for blocks, can be indefinite. Blocks are the only DS that have time limits. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: WP:AC/DS states Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project (emphasis mine), I'm guessing even if the second statement is true, the first would need to be upheld as well. --qedk (t ? c) 13:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, this is an issue of grammatical parsing. and blocks of up to one year in duration is one item in a list. Of up to one year in duration is not a qualifier to every item preceding it in the list. If you take a look at WP:AELOG you'll see indef sanctions outside of AE. It's fairly routine. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    @TonyBallioni: That's why I've always wondered the same, I assumed it was a matter of practicality (indefinite bans), either way, thanks a ton. --qedk (t ? c) 13:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for the support and shepherding that got me through the last couple of weeks. It's HUGELY appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Your bot, again

Hi, QEDK,

When tagging clean-up categories, like Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates from February 2020, they shouldn't be tagged CSD C1 but CSD G6 as they can be deleted immediately if they are empty once the date has passed (in this case, March 1st).

These tagged categories also should be placed in an appropriate speedy deletion category so that they show up and admins can see that they have been tagged and are ready to be deleted. If they are tagged but not placed in a suitable category, no one will know they have been tagged. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Are all monthly cleanup categories tagged with {{monthly cleanup category}}? That is the only way for my bot to determine if it's a C1 or G6 (since C1 can be determined by having 0 members and not meeting the non-criteria). --qedk (t ? c) 09:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Annual readership

Hi QEDK! I think your recent edits to {{annual readership}} may have broken something, because the page title apparently no longer displays correctly when using , but it did display correctly in the Feb 17 revision prior to your last two edits (compare the "Rubber duck" example in current v. Feb 17 revision). No idea if they're actually connected or what the problem is, I just noticed this and thought I'd bring it to your attention (I don't know much about template coding). Thanks, Levivich[dubious - discuss] 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Well, I was trying to fix the graph, seems like I ended up removing the parameter in the process, either way, fixed! --qedk (t ? c) 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User rights test

Just so you know, all the user rights on the right side are automatically enabled via the sysop flag. You were already a pending changes reviewer... Pending changes sucks, btw! El_C 08:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Actually, there happens to be a pretty big issue with the FlaggedRevs extension where privileged users (such as sysops) sometimes/always cannot accept/unaccept/revert PC edits. See T234743, the only workaround as of now is to have the PC right separately added. It sucks indeed! --qedk (t ? c) 08:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I sorta suspected there was a method to your method! Yet another reason pending changes sucks... Face-sad.svg El_C 08:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Church in the Darkness Screenshot.jpg

?
Thanks for uploading File:The Church in the Darkness Screenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on popflock.com resource under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on popflock.com resource (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Preventing pages from breaking

Hi,

On WP:VPT, you had wikitext displayed as <code>({{\s*(csd|speedy|cat|dab|(dis)?ambig|db|pec|possibly empty category|empty\s?cat)|with no backlinks\s*]])</code> from here. You see how you have a {{ and a ]]? This caused an issue with your {{ and/or using ]] instead of }} when I put my signature containing }}. This caused the page to break down. It wasn't mine or your fault, but in the future, if you use <code></code> to show wikitext, please use <nowikI></nowiki> to prevent such event from happening aginan. Thank you.

{{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}Copy and paste the code to reply(Talk) 03:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

In regards to your 3 month block of user:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal, said editor states they can continue to edit logged out. Judging from continuous edit warring going on at Afghan-Sikh Wars, it would appear that WorldWikiAuthorOriginal has chosen to do just that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Autoblocks only last for 24 hours, so it is possible to not login to your account and continue editing from IPs, however evading a block is not allowed by policy, hence I will extend the duration to indefinite. Thanks for bringing it up. --qedk (t ? c) 13:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for extension/renewal of rollback

Hello qedk, as you said, I should feel free to ask for a permanent extension on your talk page, when you granted me rollback privileges in January (see 1), this is why I'm here now. I would very much like to continue using Huggle to fight vandalism (or rather resume doing so, as I didn't have the time recently). Or do you think it would be more appropriate to re-request at WP:RFP/R, as it has since run out? Thank you for your time in advance! AntiCedros (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCedros:  Done Good luck and happy editing! --qedk (t ? c) 13:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

ITN posting

I saw you said you were new to ITN posting; if it helps, this is my workflow. Once I make sure it might be ready, I open the article and do a quick review on it myself. After I make sure it is good and open at least one source to make sure the death is real, I ctrl+click Template:In the news, every 'give credit' button, and the edit button on the nomination. I change the nomination to include the word posted, I make the edit to the ITN template, and then I use ctrl+tab and click 'submit' on every page. It makes it go pretty quick and I don't forget any pages that way. Sorry if that was all obvious, and thanks for your ITN work! Kees08 (Talk) 16:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: No way, thanks a lot! I'm tech-savvy enough to intern (unpaid ofc Face-tongue.svg) but somehow I can't see the well-made little "give credit" link. FacepalmFacepalm --qedk (t ? c) 20:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for trying for Jennifer Bate for me, however you might try for Rolf Huisgen ;) - sad record, four people one day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Will definitely try Face-wink.svg; time doesn't seem to wait for anything. --qedk (t ? c) 07:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thank you, - that poor fellow (99, almost Nobel prize) was exposed only for a few hours, while the sensational one I thought was premature to post is still there ... - and Penderecki will possibly never come, because of a few citations missing, - strange world, ITN, but you reach more readers than DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Just posted Pendericki! --qedk (t ? c) 07:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow! I believe in miracles again!! Thank you!!! - Wonderful images greeting us in your edit notice, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Glad you like them, Gerda. (: It's some difficult times and it's the small miracles that make my day. --qedk (t ? c) 08:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you think you could produce the small miracle of turning to the Huisgen nom and click on every "credit" therin? ... and same for Penderecki, if you haven't done so? - A bot takes care of the article talk, but not of the users, don't ask me why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Done now! Face-smile.svg The community doesn't like bots to interact with editors with positive reinforcement for some reason (hence, no welcome bots, barnstar bots, etc.) so probably that. --qedk (t ? c) 09:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Denied rights

Hi, you recently denied my request for reviewing Pending changes. I believe you were misguided by the bot. at the time I made the request, my account was younger than 30 days. however, after the bot left the message, my account has aged, and now it is quite a bit older than 30 days. If you wouldn't mind, I would love if you reviewed my request again, as I think I am fit for the permission. if your opinion still stands, that is also fine, I will accept it and I will try and get more experience and resubmit. thanks for considering. :) Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 21:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A request

I remain very much intent on leaving this project because of how I've been treated over the last two years or so, but that doesn't justify this. It's been less than a week since you told both of us to stop needling each other -- I dutifully stayed the **** away from Andy, and he posted the above unprovoked attack. Would you please reiterate your previous request to knock it off? Not asking for any administrative action, just a reminder.

Might as well also ping Cullen328 (talk · contribs).

Hijiri 88 (?) 11:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.

User_talk:QEDK
 



 



 
Music Scenes