User talk:Qwaiiplayer

Jump to navigation Jump to search

If I dun goofed please let me know below.


Thanks for your warning, but would you please explain to me how Wikipedia handles the potential harm brought by Wikipedia pages to its users? I don't have a personal interest against Intelius, but merely try to provide a warning to other users like me, who put in the trust of a Wikipedia page. I don't seem to find an answer anywhere. I would appreciate any pointers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPresidentUSA (talkcontribs) 18:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • MrPresidentUSA: Firstly, I sympathize with the fact that you feel you've been wronged; it sucks when it feels that you have no recourse. However, Wikipedia is not the place to try to resolve this matter. Unless you can find some way of having the evidence that Intelius is a scam company published in independent sources, it would only be seen as original research and not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. In addition, Wikipedia is something that you must use at your own risk; simply because something is written on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's true! So unfortunately, I don't think there's a mechanism for handling these situations on Wikipedia, as it's expected that anything written here should be verified independently and not taken at face value. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. I appreciate your explanation.

Editing tables in VE

I am posting this on your talk page because it's not exactly related to the AFT discussion. It's my observation that some editors were very unhappy with VE when it first came out (myself included). Some editors swore off every using VE. That's unfortunate, because while the early implementation of VE was horrendous, they made some significant improvements especially the handling of tables. I don't know anything about your experience so maybe you do not edit tables but I've edited thousands of them. That used to be very painful editing in wiki text. When they finally implemented editing tables in VE it became quite simple. Almost as easy as editing a table in Excel. Most of the tables I've added in the last few years have been done using VE. It's as simple as creating a table in Excel and then copy and pasting it into the VE edit box. Subsequent edits are also very easy. I understand that this may not mean much if you don't work much with tables, but a substantial proportion of articles I work on have tables, and I can't imagine having to do that in the wiki text editor.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


That page disambiguates precisely zero articles and thus meets the criteria for SD. I wonder why you thought to revert it. Should I remove the defective entries first? Avilich (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Avilich A more appropriate avenue for discussing whether or not the redirects on Julia Antonia are legitimate is WP:RFD. That way consensus can be established rather than leaving the decision to delete the page in the hands of a single editor and administrator. Note that I have no opinion as to whether or not the redirected pages are legitimate redirect targets or not; I'm just of the opinion that in the case of disagreement there should be discussion rather than unilateral decisions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
RfD is for discussing, well, redirects, but there are none in question. Dab pages are intended for disambiguation, obviously, and neither the listed articles' titles nor content have anything to do with the dab target "Julia Antonia". This seems as straightforward as any G14. Not sure why there would be 'disagreement' here. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of your decision, thanks for your time. Avilich (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Avilich My mistake, yeah a DAB should be taken to WP:AFD for discussion. Regardless I can't stop you from doing what you feel is right. I just wanted to rationalize what I did; it was merely procedural and doesn't pass judgement on the legitimacy of the DAB targets. Take care. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Jang Ju-won

Thank you for rescuing this, I thought it was a lost case (hoax/error). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus: No problem. It was a group effort. I wouldn't have noticed anything amiss had it not been for other editors on the talk page raising concerns and finding sources on the subject. I'm glad that everything was rectified in the end. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Dele-Cole

Please don't remove G12 copyright deletion nominations from articles. This particular article has copyright material in older revisions, and therefore needs revision deletion. Please leave such cases for administrators to assess and clean. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Diannaa: Understood. Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of this. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


Hi, this is not a big deal, but I'm not sure why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yousef Al Omeir? There were 4 delete !votes (including the nom) vs. 1 keep. JBchrch talk 22:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: Hi. My reasoning was that significant changes were made to the article after the nom and first delete !vote which I thought deserved more discussion, but in hindsight with the 3 users (including the nominator) addressing the new sources, it was probably safe to leave the AfD for an admin to delete without a relist. My b. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah this makes sense. No worries 👍 JBchrch talk 23:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vika Tsiganova

Did you just close an AfD as "keep" for a BLP that has not a single reference in it? --Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Randykitty: The sources posted in the last comment seemed uncontested toward filling notability, but looking more closely they should have at least warranted further discussion from Russian speaking editors. Honest mistake. I reverted my edits and reopened the AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Don't worry, we all make mistakes :-) --Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unqork

Hi. I'm checking up on the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unqork that was relisted on 8/18. There's been a lot of discussion since then. Are you able to make a judgement based on what is there?

@100Bunnies: Looking at the AfD in its current state, I don't think it's an appropriate for me to close it under the guidelines for a non-admin closure, as Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. Therefore, I'll leave it to a patrolling admin to close. Hope that makes sense. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, got it. I'm new to this. It's been a few weeks. Is there a way to ask an admin to take a look?
For now it's best to be patient. There's quite a backlog of AfDs right now. In the meantime, the article will still be around as long as the AfD remains open. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Házikecske portré.JPG

Good job! Thank you.

MrSamContributor (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Dimov (weightlifter)

You seem to be having a bit of relist bias. This should have been closed as delete (the arguments for deletion are policy based, and there is no opposition). It would be better if you undid your re-listing and let an admin correctly close it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I will admit I'm biased towards relisting, and in this case the AfD should have been left alone. I've reverted the relist. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Mountain

Please do not repeat such closures. An AfD with three participants split 2:1 is unsuited for a non-admin to determine consensus. Sandstein 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Disappointed with closing of XfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alobo Naga

Hi there, Please do not close AfD discussion as it is going under discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alobo Naga, you could have to relist it. But disappointed with closing it as to keep. Because the article is getting developed like promotional after closing it the discussion. Thank you ! Onmyway22 talk 12:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Onmyway22: There were 3 keep !votes with policy based reasons for keeping the article. There was rough consensus that the subject is notable enough for an article. If the tone of the article is overly promotional, then the promotional matrial can be removed through editing. If you really want to take this to WP:Deletion Review then I can't stop you, but I'd recommend carefully reading WP:Deletion Review#Purpose before going that route. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia (2021)

Hi, I see that you have suggested deleting this article. I don't understand why. When the pandemic started, it was not known how long it would last, so over time, the main article became too extensive. Therefore, the overview by dates is divided by years. There is little that can be understood from this article about the course of the pandemic, because many things have been skipped. Milanl1991 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Milan1991: Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia (2020) was that there was no need to WP:SPLIT the timeline by year at this time. If there's important information missing from Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia included in the 2021 article, then the information from COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia (2021) can be copied over. Having multiple articles covering the same subject is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK which will require the maintenance of multiple timelines on the same subject. If the article becomes too large and does need to be WP:SPLIT then consensus should be reached per WP:PROSPLIT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand everything you wrote, but how do we determine what will end up in the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia from the deleted article? At the moment, there are some dates with data on the pandemic, but I don't understand by what criteria they were chosen, were they chosen at random or for some reason? Also, it is important for me to know if I need to enter data for the last two weeks. Because it will be deleted anyway, so that I don't work unnecessarily. Milanl1991 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Milan1991: Content appropriate for a timeline article can be determined naturally through the bold, revert, discuss cycle that all articles go through to generate consensus. I would not recommend adding more content to COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia (2021) unless you plan on contesting the PROD in which case I'd bring the article to AfD for further discussion. As said above, the content can be merged back into Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia so that multiple lists don't need to be maintained on the same topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>