User talk:QRep2020

Hello, QRep2020! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you! I look forward to adding more information about Q Groups to Wikipedia. QRep2020 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QRep2020. You have new messages at NicatronTg's talk page.
Message added 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:THREAD. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Don't you think the other editors of the TSLAQ Talk page could benefit from a similar note? QRep2020 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left you the note because you keep creating new sections on User talk:Tintdepotcom instead of replying to the ongoing conversation, and also because I'd pointed this out to you previously. Schazjmd (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at TSLAQ. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fish+Karate 14:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

QRep2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The section in question has been under dispute for days now. Please refer to the Talk page of TSLAQ. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the subject matter that users are attempting to press, i.e. that TSLAQ is a group of short sellers, and I am trying to steer the page away from this characterization. The topic is controversial to say the least. Also, the section in question unnecessarily expands on the topic of short selling in general and also speaks of TSLAQ solely as a source of negativity. I ask that you review the Talk page and see that I am simply trying to keep the page's content concise, relevant, and unbiased. That said, I do promise to discuss matters myself on the Talk page even when the topic has been breached by others. And I will review the 5 Pillars. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Promising to discuss matters and to review the five pillars is good, but what we'd also need is a commitment to not edit war, irrespective of whether or not there's a discussion. Huon (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

QRep2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The section in question has been under dispute for days now. Please refer to the Talk page of TSLAQ. There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the subject matter that users are attempting to press, i.e. that TSLAQ is a group of short sellers, and I am trying to steer the page away from this characterization. The topic is controversial to say the least. Also, the section in question unnecessarily expands on the topic of short selling in general and also speaks of TSLAQ solely as a source of negativity. I ask that you review the Talk page and see that I am simply trying to keep the page's content concise, relevant, and unbiased. That said, I do promise to discuss matters myself on the Talk page even when the topic has been breached by others AND commit myself to not engaging in edit wars irrespective of whether or not there's a discussion. I will also review the 5 Pillars. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As you have committed to not edit war, and this block is short, I will remove it. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this statement in your unblock request: that TSLAQ is a group of short sellers, and I am trying to steer the page away from this characterization. Every reliable source in the article refers to TSLAQ as short sellers. What is your reliable source that covers TSLAQ that does not describe them that way? Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Russ Mitchell's article: "Tesla is the quintessential pioneering but polarizing company — and it's on Twitter, where these passionate bears who make up groups like $TSLAQ run into the bulls and Musk evangelists." A bear is not necessarily a short seller, it's just someone that thinks a stock is overpriced. I'll find more if you like. QRep2020 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And not to harp here, but notice how Russ was fair about calling TSLAQ members silly names along with Tesla bulls ("Musk evangelists")? That's completely missing from the section that Tinting2020 and Phyronian keep suggesting is required.QRep2020 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, please be aware the $TSLAQ hyperlink on your user page no longer works because https://twitter.com/breaking_debt/lists/tsla-tslaq does not exist. NedFausa (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! QRep2020 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QRep2020. You have new messages at NicatronTg's talk page.
Message added 08:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QRep, I would suggest copying the content of the Tripp article to your sandbox. I've just about exclusively avoided Tesla related topics because I don't want to dive into the ugliness associated with the topic. I've been following the topic for a while and simply don't want to be part of that controversy. Anyway, even if the Tripp article wasn't so one sided it still should be deleted since Tripp isn't notable outside of the Tesla topic. We have to be careful when dealing with a real person, especially one who has been reportedly badly treated by the company.

I would suggest being careful when working on the tq article. Reliable sourcing may be difficult and if people disagree with your work, being a WP:SPA isn't going to help credibility. Best of luck. Springee (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate the advice. I have been meaning to publish more about other "Q groups" (i.e. online groups acting against specific corporate entities) but TSLAQ, like you pointed out, can get quite hairy and requires some vigilance. QRep2020 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is I look at the Tesla article and it has no mention nor link to TeslaQ. I think it should and certainly there is enough information about TeslaQ in reliable sources as well as Tesla's war against critics to justify inclusion but I really don't want to dive into that pool... Springee (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely because the Tesla article is patrolled by Tesla fans instead of people interested in reporting all there is to report about Tesla. Maybe if or when this latest attack on the TSLAQ article ends I'll consider proposing it be mentioned on the Tesla one. Do you happen to be aware of any articles where this happens already, meaning where the entry for a topic's opponent is linked to from the topic's entry? Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has the material been added? Springee (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't added anything to the Tesla article, no. But am considering broaching the idea in the near future. I was asking if you knew of any examples of this happening elsewhere on Wikipedia to perhaps show some precedence. If you have any suggestions about how to propose it on the Tesla Talk page, please add them to my sandbox. QRep2020 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to chime in here, as I've also been surprised by how biased the Tesla article seems to be, with the lack of any reference to TSLAQ or criticism more generally. 'Lawsuits and controversies' seems like the most relevant section - so I've been thinking maybe that could be expanded to detail the 'battery swap' program, fake solar roof reveal, or Autopilot investigations, and possibly include a reference to TSLAQ there? Stonkaments (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say take the matter slowly because resistance is inevitable. I will contribute to the discussion even though my primary focus is Q groups and not so much the groups they criticize. I also anticipate TSLAQ will get vandalized again after bringing it up on Tesla's talk page so I hope you will continue to help maintain it. Cheers! QRep2020 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee and Stonkaments, I suggested this on Talk :Tesla, Inc.. QRep2020 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something I was thinking about while reading through the Tripp article, Elektrek and Cleantecnica are often cited in Tesla related material. However, I don't think either should count as reliable. Elektrek has, poorly, disclosed that they have a financial interest in Tesla stock. Sources like Jalopnik have noted the issues with some of their reporting. Cleantecnica has certainly been accused of being a Tesla organ with some compeling evidence. I'm not sure if their editors have fiscal ties to Tesla. Regardless both are questionable sources for objective information. That might a good RSN topic. Springee (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and materials from those sites are repudiated on the TSLAQ article. Didn't realize there wasn't a Wikipedia wide ban. QRep2020 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a ban. I don't think anyone has made a RSN claim in that regard. I think the elektrek case can be made without too much fuss. Not as sure about the other one. Springee (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will likely make the requests then myself. Thanks, and please do feel welcome to work on the TSLAQ page. QRep2020 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted about Cleantechnica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Cleantechnica QRep2020 (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your RSN discussion. I think I would have started with Elektrek since it's easy to find COI articles on that site. Anyway, I would suggest looking for sources that question CT or at least find evidence of their conflict of interest (editors promoting or fiscal ties to Tesla). Springee (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I went with Cleantechnica because there's so many references to it on Wikipedia already which was surprising. QRep2020 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking in on the TQ article and noticed this edit [[1]]. I don't think the HF podcast will pass RS muster unless it's being used to support that a particular person said "X". In that case we have to ask if what they said was DUE for inclusion. Typically it isn't. An exception might be if "news report says Mr X did [thing]". If Mr X is interviewed then we often can use a non-RS to quote Mr X saying "I didn't do [thing]. Unfortunately many very solid arguments/discussions exist in places like Seaking Alpha are just not going to pass RS muster here. I would take a minute to review WP:RS. Springee (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wasn't so hot about that inclusion myself. I was trying to expand on User:Stonkaments's additions but I can see that was in folly. Thanks for your candor; removing reference and respective clause. QRep2020 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: [[2]] Springee (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just letting you know. Absent better evidence there isn't anything else that can be done. The investigators can see that the behavior is suspicious but they need more than that to act upon. At this point the investigation will be closed. I just thought I would let you know for reference. Springee (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, felt like putting those points "on the record" is all. QRep2020 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something that is very important when editing Wikipedia is to think about how things work here. To some extent you are being treated unfairly but if generally reasonable, experienced editors are concerned then you need to think about your own actions and how it looks to others regardless of if their concerns (short seller for example) are true. The TSLAQ RfC was probably the right thing to do. I think the accusations made against you shouldn't be in the RfC. Perhaps an admin can help you with that. As for your question here [[3]], if I were frustrated with you I would see that as short changing the process. A RfC is typically open for 30 days. If it were closed today I might say it was consensus for inclusion. However, it's simply too early. You need to let it run the full length of the RfC. If at the end editors still can't agree with the outcome then you need to file a request for closure. That will be done by an independent editor. Sometimes it's frustrating but you need to work within the system else those who don't like the content you want to add will use the system to get you tband or similar. There are many WP articles similar to this one but take a read [[4]]. Springee (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The one I read didn't say anything about a time limit before suggesting closure. So many rules! QRep2020 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to just let the RfC go for the full month, see what the outcome is then propose text. When you push too hard people's wp:PUSH detectors get triggered and they stop assuming good faith. Springee (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. With the matter of thedrive.com article, the author embeds the PlainSite tweet with the count at https://www.thedrive.com/tech/29089/tesla-enters-whistleblower-hell. Is this to be considered the author "citing" the number? QRep2020 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the best way to handle that. I think it's easier to get that right if you get the bigger picture right. Remember, this is supposed to be a section with a clear topic sentence/paragraph and supporting evidence. If we get that right, the rest falls into place.

This is interesting [[5]] Springee (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worse than a heretic. Do you think an article about the fan base itself could fly? QRep2020 (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self congratulatory interlude

A few years back I put a lot of effort into the Ford Pinto article. I was interested in the topic but got really involved after a now blocked editor decided to take his feud with me to that topic. The editor was trying to use the topic to show that Ford was clearly behaving badly. They were jamming just about every negative thing they could find into the article and really playing up the shock aspect of the Pinto's safety stories. What they weren't doing was creating any sort of well written article. The article was locked for 1 month for edit warring (March to April 2016). I took that time to rewrite over half the article and try to make it follow some logical structure. The net result has been largely stable and achieved good article status. Ultimately I don't mind that Ford's failures were in the article. I personally have never even driven a Pinto and own no Ford products. But I didn't like the idea of the narrative being told so poorly and looking like someone was trying to kitchen sink the article. I think the negative material about Tesla's accounting, lawsuits, legal actions in general, and responses to critics is an important part of the Tesla story but it should be told in a way that has structure and makes sense. I think I did that with the Pinto case. I think it can be done with the Tesla article... but I'm personally not interested in doing it. Too much effort given how much time I have these days. Writing like that takes far more effort that talk page responses :D Springee (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that can be accomplished. I will give the Lawsuits and Controversies edits another shot tomorrow and attempt to impose some semblance of a structure. It might require returned efforts but it will be a start. Appreciate your wisdom here! QRep2020 (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest doing it in your sandbox and inviting a few people to take a look. I think you will burn out some of the active Tesla editors if you keep posting version after version. In the sandbox you have a change for many back and forth edits without pissing people off. Springee (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee, I'm curious if you have any ideas or suggestions on the sort of changes you would envision for improving the article about Tesla's lawsuits and controversies? Or do you have an example of a similar section for another company that you think is well-written? I have some time on my hands so I wouldn't mind taking a crack at it ;) The way I see it, the section covers a wide range of largely independent issues, though they show a pretty clear pattern of poor governance, lack of honesty and transparency, and hostility to criticism. Is listing all of the issues in their own subsections not the best way to handle it? Do you think the issues warrant mention in the lead? Stonkaments (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really. I haven't read the article and so much of my knowledge of the subject comes from sources that aren't acceptable for WP. As a high level suggestions I would suggest grouping similar types of lawsuits. I would also try to find RSs that discuss the topic and see how they handle it. Springee (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not too long ago we talked about Electrek's reliability. Well this might shed some light on the clear COI I mentioned. https://twitter.com/GretaYacht/status/1273415582713593857/photo/1 Springee (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stunning. QRep2020 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to be unanimous for barring some degree of sourcing and that is surprising. QRep2020 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Springee! It looks like I made a bit of a fool of myself again, this time over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Elon_Musk. That fact aside, do you have a take on the volunteer's suggestion? I thought this would be a sure case for a Dispute resolution but alas. Thanks and hope all is well. QRep2020 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of examples of Musk lying or over stating but to be honest this seems like something that isn't worth the effort. Musk may have done some engineering over the years but it seems that most of his efforts are in other aspects of the business. As for the volunteer's suggestion, no, you don't have to take it. The volunteer is most helpful when just two editors are arguing thus you can't ever have a consensus. If a number of editors have weighed in then that volunteer is effectively just one more opinion. In a case like this you could raise a BLPN concern but I don't think it would go far. "Engineer" is generally not a pejorative so it's not like people will suggest avoiding the label for caution sake. Basically if the tide is strongly against you this is probably a good time to just let the water go by. Springee (talk) 01:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any short positions on TSLA? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere on Wikipedia, I do not have any short positions on TSLA. I don't have any long positions either. QRep2020 (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok good enough for me. Sorry to bother you. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:QRep2020 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:QRep2020, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 1.Ayana. I thought User Pages were more like profile pages on Github and Twitch than they actually are. QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1.Ayana:, can you explain why you are nominating a user's home page for deletion? Springee (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can come up with reliable, relevant sources, I would think TSLAQ would merit a section in List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc. Leave me a message if you'd be interested in my input. MartinezMD (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would welcome the help. Would reusing some of the ones on TSLAQ work? QRep2020 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We can use any. They just have to be on point and reliable. Which ones are you considering? MartinezMD (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These ones are key:

• https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-short-sellers-musk-20190408-story.html
• https://www.wired.co.uk/article/elon-musk-twitter-fans
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/how-elon-musk-gambled-tesla-to-save-solarcity
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-22/the-tesla-tslaq-skeptics-who-bet-against-elon-musk

QRep2020 (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good, reliable, mainstream sources. They will carry weight if they support the applicable sentences. Write a paragraph here, and we can carefully proofread it and prepare it for insertion into the article. I'll give you my input and make suggestions where I think they'll be helpful. MartinezMD (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I'll feel better if the overt mentions of Nigrini were left out, given that they were added by a user account that self-identified as belonging to Nigrini. - MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the plot thickens. In that case I have another source in mind that I will try to reference in place of the Nigrini ones. Thank you for elaborating. QRep2020 (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it is in better shape now. Thank you for your patience! QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Plainsite logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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) 18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B-bot (talk · contribs), assuming you can take messages, feel free to delete the orphaned image as I found a better one to use for PlainSite. Good bot! QRep2020 (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Stonkaments (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Genshuixue has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The parent company, GSX, might be notable, but there is not enough in-depth coverage of this software to show it passes WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bring this all to my attention. I got sidetracked by some other articles and plum forgot about it. I will add several new citations and fact statements in the edits I plan to make over the next couple of days. QRep2020 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I couldn't find a lot of additional reliable sources. Oh well. Maybe I will give it another go in the future. QRep2020 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Genshuixue logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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) 17:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QRep2020,

Please remember that all content on Wikipedia should be written from a neutral point of view. I noticed you mention on your talk page that you believe "there is a fundamental misunderstanding about [TSLAQ] that users are attempting to press, i.e. that TSLAQ is a group of short-sellers, and I am trying to steer the page away from this characterization. The topic is controversial to say the least"

Everyone has their own perspective, especially on controversial topics, but that must not affect the overall neutrality of the article. If you're able to cite sources that show that many bears don't have financial positions in Tesla stock, that's all well and good and can contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic of the page. However, aggressively reverting changes that don't fit with your perspective in an attempt to "steer the page away from this characterization" does not contribute to a deeper and more well-rounded understanding of the topic.

For anyone who would like to review, here are the Wikipedia guidelines on Neutral Point of View.

I also noticed on your talk page that "edit warring" had been previously mentioned. It might be better to try and discuss changes you take issue with rather than just quickly reverting the edits so that the page doesn't divert from your point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihwcihw (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the policies of Wikipedia, thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you again edited three different pages regarding TSLAQ short sellers to hide relevant information? In particular, I had noticed that that Martin Tripp section on the TSLAQ page had not been updated to reflect information on the settlement of the case. I cited an article from The Verge mentioning that the case was settled with an agreement that Tripp would pay Tesla $400,000 and had admitted that his legal defense had been funded be Cable Car Capital. The Verge (and other publications covering the case) mentioned this because it was one of the key terms of the settlement agreement. For you to repeatedly remove this detail because you are trying "to steer this page away from the characterization" that "TSLAQ is a group of short sellers" (as you mentioned earlier on this talk page) represents you pushing your point of view rather than allowing a neutral point of view with all relevant facts.

If you know the Wikipedia rules, please follow them. you seem to be aggressively policing what is allowed to be said on any page involving Tesla short sellers in a dishonest way that I find very concerning. Cihwcihw (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This obvious bias goes beyond just Tesla. Things SpaceX did disappear from articles with "ce, added more details [...]" as edit summary, meanwhile wrong claims are added to the article. @QRep2020: Stop this. It's obvious you have a financial interest in Tesla, but losing money from shorting it is not a reason to post wrong things in Wikipedia. --mfb (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cihwcihw (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QRep2020: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, HAL333 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Elephanthunter (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created TSLAQ, and I noticed that your username, "QRep2020", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It identifies me individually as I have stated elsewhere. QRep2020 (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You have done some excellent work on TSLAQ. I can't wait to see what you go on to do next! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, my first one! Thank you, MJL! And thank you for your comment about "investigating" compared to "studying" - I definitely meant the latter. QRep2020 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! The culture here can be really hard to grasp at first, but I have faith you'll get there. While that thread may look like you have a lot of detractors, I think it is more impressive how many editors have stepped up to defend your edits there. That doesn't happen often!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- ~ HAL333 20:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elon Musk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antibody testing. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Concerns about undisclosed paid editing need to be addressed

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:RavenDB and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:RavenDB, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QRep2020! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And good work on stock-related pages. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tesla Bot 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesla Bot until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Mikalagrand (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Award for SpaceX Starship neutrality

Alright, this require some background from me. I am a bit of a SpaceX fan (though not as bad as tweeting about it everyday), and I avoid writing the criticism/reception section because I might introduce bias. Then, you came and make a lot good criticisms, as well as showing good faith to be neutral as well. I think that having a Tesla/SpaceX/Elon Musk critic is very rare, and even rarer to make contributions to Wikipedia. Thanks a lot for your contributions on Wikipedia and TSLAQ, as well as disillusion us a bit from Elon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Would you mind review the article for neutrality? I might have overlooked at some negative aspect of Starship and Elon in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@QRep2020: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! 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) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I merely pointed out that the "copyedit" you made over at Criticism of Tesla, Inc. resulted in the sentence being grammatically incorrect. Rudeness is not the best reaction in this situation. Although, judging by this page, it's not the first time that problem occurred. Let's keep Wikipedia civil and pleasant, not snippy. Best of luck and merry Christmas, if you celebrate. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a Tesla and added an image from last night after the download. I am not sure what you are asking me to do here. Do you own the Tesla site? I thought this was Wikipedia.Kmccook (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am just saying that having contributed textual content to the Tesla article and being a Tesla owner might be seen as a conflict of interest case. I am not saying it is, but others have accused me of a COI for less. edit: I did not remove the image by the way, only the text. QRep2020 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QRep2020. In case you're not already aware: https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u69f22/elon_musks_wikipedia_page_is_seriously_biased/. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, yes. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk)

Also: Guys - we succeeded! QRep2020 is now indefinitely blocked from editing the Wikipedia article on Elon Musk!! (Archive 1) (Archive 2) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so stupid. QRep2020 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk for violations to the Biographies of living persons policy. For now. Sitewide may be needed as there's a limit to the number of pages that can be added to a p-block, and there are many Elon Musk and Tesla, etc. -related pages. Look, QRep2020, you are adding so much negative material about Elon Musk, it goes beyond WP:UNDUE to outright violating BLP. You can't keep going like this. It would probably be best if you were to edit topics that do not concern Elon Musk or his companies. Thanks.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 20:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This block is bullshit. Please appeal. Schierbecker (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns have been raised by another admin (diff) of a possible WP:COI, so bullshit or not, it'd probably be prudent to address these matters substantively in any forthcoming appeal. El_C 01:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck are you talking about? Do not misrepresent policy. WP:COI states, "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Qrep2020 has no apparent conflict here. A Wikipedia administrator insinuated, completely without evidence, that Qrep2020 had a bone to pick with Musk because he wrote a B-class Wikipedia article about a Tesla short-selling operation. QRep2020's edits aren't perfect, but they are generally productive. You've screwed up big time. Admit your error and unblock immediately. Schierbecker (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna have this split discussion here with you, Schierbecker. Cut the aggression. El_C 02:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why are you throwing this in my face? i'm already upset over this. QRep2020 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be thrown in your face, I'm obliged to do it for a number of reasons that go beyond the scope of this. But the short of it is to account for the overlap between WP:BLP and WP:ARBBLP. El_C 01:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back off. Jesus christ. Schierbecker (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker, enough. El_C 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

QRep2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am preparing a well-developed and involved appeal for my account's recent blocks to be lifted, but I request to know exactly what policies served as justifications for my block. I see some mention of a COI, which I was previously accused of, but no consensus was ever reached: [6] . Similar questions were raised here already. Again, I ask so I can better explain why I deserve a second chance in terms of full access editing privileges. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only, not an unblock request. To just ask questions related to the block, use {{admin help}} The stated reason for the block is WP:BLP violations. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am preparing a well-developed and involved appeal for my account's recent blocks to be lifted, but I request to know exactly what policies served as justifications for my block. I see some mention of a COI, which I was previously accused of but no consensus was ever reached, as well as BLP, though that did not come up as often as talk of SPA, and finally something about "decorum". Similar questions were raised here already. Again, I ask so I can better explain why I deserve a second chance in terms of full access editing privileges. Thank you.

According to the blocking admin, you are blocked for violating the biographies of living persons policy, specifically, adding an excessive amount of negative content with undue weight. Probably the most egregious example of such editing is Special:Diff/1083475827, where you add a very poorly-sourced claim that a specific person is a sociopath. You can't go around calling people sociopaths because some random Tom, Dick, or Harry called them one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Reaper Eternal. That said, I don't see anything about excess negativity on WP:BLP. The part that I've always been following is in WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, mainly, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I have always tried to stick with using quotations from independent third-party reliable sources. Also, if you look at the history, I didn't add that claim to the article - I merely argued for it to remain in the article, as it had been there since the GAN basically. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The specific sections you are looking for are WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPGOSSIP. WP:UNDUE is part of the NPOV policy. These appear to be the reasons you have been blocked from editing Elon Musk. (El C, please correct me if I am wrong.) Additionally, just because something has been in the article in the past, it is still your responsibility when you add it back. If something has been removed for BLP reasons, you should be especially careful before adding it back. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest quoting Levivich in your unban request; the biggest issue, and I believe the reason for your ban, is the addition of "sociopath" to the article, but as that wording was endorsed by an RFC it shouldn't be held against you. BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

QRep2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I readily admit that I have grown obsessive in counterbalancing what I perceived was a bend or bias towards promotionalism in articles directly or indirectly about Elon Musk and his activities. I apologize for that. After much reflection, I honestly think I am in a better, more self-aware state now and can curb any compulsiveness should it arise again. If my block from Elon Musk and Talk: Elon Musk are lifted, I promise to refrain from making any edits to Elon Musk for a couple of months as a demonstration of my change in behavior. I also give my word, going forward, per a suggestion from Springee, to have "no more than 50% of [my] meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc."

Now, I do maintain that this account has not been operating as and will not operate as a SPA, and I do believe I did not violate BLP policy when I reintroduced a specific edit citing Vanity Fair following WP:BRD. Levivich summarizes the argument why much better than I ever could:

I don't know why people keep pointing to this diff as a BLP vio when

• 1. the line had been in the article for a year (since Special:Diff/1018696069)
  2. it was supported in an RFC (Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 9#RfC about Musk's treatment of employees), and
  3. it was in the version that was promoted to GA (Special:Permalink/1026867820).

All of these three points have been raised in this ANI thread and also on the talk page at Talk:Elon Musk#"total and complete pathological sociopath". Turns out, consensus changed, and the line was removed, but that was after. No BLP violation that diff. Levivich 17:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That said, as I am in contrition about contributions of negativity, my final promise is to refrain from making original edits or reverting back to any edits that could be easily perceived as gossip or poorly sourced name-calling in any BLP content (regardless if it is part of a quotation or not) and especially in regards to Musk. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking, I think as long as you follow your last promise there shouldn't be further problems. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not an admin, but I do endorse this unblock – QRep2020 is a reasonable editor, and I don't think QRep would have the intention to repeat these behaviors again. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I also endorse the unblock. I am mostly uninvolved with the editor QRep2020 until very recently. QRep2020 was facing some particularly vicious harassment from some Reddit juveniles, whose edits were apparently inspired by Elon Musk himself. Please see the article in Slate for background. QRep2020's edits were on balance with press coverage of Musk, which has been trending negative lately. The blocking admin erred in his zero-tolerance schoolyard justice approach to the situation and has blocked a productive editor. Schierbecker (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to unblock. QRep2020 do be careful, as you mentioned, regarding BLP whether or not the content is long-standing. El_C do you have any objections? Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. El_C 03:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! QRep2020 (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk books 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk books until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For keeping Wikipedia free of Musk infomercials StellarNerd (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had my suspicions regarding sockpuppetry, and I am glad you had the confidence to take it to the next level. Thanks! QRep2020 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any more suspicions, please do share. Happy to hear about them on my talk and look into them. These spammers and fanboys must be rooted out. I listened to your podcast with MJL earlier, it was cool. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) So, this IP is solely focused on the Elon is a Tesla Cofounder discussion and could be a sockpuppet: 71.247.65.88 QRep2020 (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@StellarNerd , actually, looking closer, it appears that the two recent IP-only accounts in that thread are exhibiting similar behaviors: https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/?wiki=enwiki&user=75.127.162.34&user=71.247.65.88 . They appear to be both talking about shell company status and in fact use the same language repeatedly - much like Xpenz did - as shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk?diff=prev&oldid=1094630735 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk?diff=prev&oldid=1094491404 . One of the users also appears to have reused language about the LA Times and CNET from an earlier IP-only user momentarily and then changed quickly changed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk?diff=prev&oldid=1092982554 and then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=next&oldid=1094629789 QRep2020 (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is 100% not our Danish friend, and I can't see who else it is. I did search for some language quirks and crosschecked against some of the editors in the discussion. I agree that 75.127.162.34 (Verizon Business, NY) and 71.247.65.88 (Half Hollow Hills ISP , Dix City, NY) are the same person. The 71.247.65.88's ISP is a school district or library, I think. I don't think it is against the rules to edit from multiple different IP addresses, unless they pretend to be different people. Are they pretending to be two somewhere? --StellarNerd (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have seen, but all three IPs - 70.18.209.50 is the third - are talking about proposing an RfC on Elon Musk so I will be on the lookout for anything shady. The matter of the potential RfC is AGAIN an attempt to change the article to say he cofounded Tesla, which of course is not what happened. I hope anyone who is interested in preserving the record will participate. QRep2020 (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

70.18.209.50 is also probably the same person, it is Verizon Business from same area of New York. If any of these pretend to be different people, like vote multiple times, then we can make a sockpuppet case. But if it is one person moving around on devices and locations, that's not wrong by itself. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StellarNerd, long time -- oh lord, it's only been 6 months? Sheesh!

Could these IPs be our old Danish friend? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.225.188.130 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.237.95.117

Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QRep2020. You have new messages at Talk:SpaceX Starship.
Message added 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the article's NPOV-ness? Is it still biased towards Musk? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Xavier Alexander Musk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#Xavier Alexander Musk until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm currently at 3R at Musk and have to tread lightly. But, if you feel so, you can revert our Danish friend. There's a consensus against his changes. ~ HAL333 20:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the discussion about this going in the lede? I recall a discussion about his dropping out, but not whether it belonged in the lede. Schierbecker (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, maybe it was not about the lead paragraphs. QRep2020 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still, he moved to California ostensibly to go to Stanford after his acceptance. Leaving that out might give the wrong impression. QRep2020 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteNexus (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, QRep2020! Have a prosperous new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You too, IN! QRep2020 (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little unclear on your edit summary. You approvingly quoted the definition for "state" and say it's fine, yet reverted my edit, putting "claimed" back into the article? WP:CLAIM indicates that "stated" would be preferential to "claimed". Could you please explain? --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell. Did I really read that backwards somehow? QRep2020 (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix! --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vice article you cited on the Criticism of Tesla, Inc. page does indeed say "quasi-religious" (an accusation that characterizes many tech companies and has been more widely mentioned in regard to Steve Jobs and Apple). However, it seems to me that an original article is generally a better source to reference. When I clicked the highlighted "quasi-religious" in the Vice article you cited, I got 404. However, after you reverted my edit, I cut-pasted the full URL from your edit comment and that worked. So I'm fine regarding your change, though I still think the original article (including its title) makes more sense as the source (unless your intention is to show the beta test failure, rather than evidence "quasi-religious"). Martindo (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we could do that. QRep2020 (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello QRep2020! Per your comments in Talk:Criticism of Facebook#Article should be split up, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing and leaving comments in the section I added to the talk page on 4 March 2023 to facilitate a new discussion about a potential move review and splits, merges, and retitle proposals for Meta Platforms family of articles. Thanks! -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look in the next couple of days. QRep2020 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it myself. Martindo (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, got distracted. Good job, by the way. QRep2020 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linette Lopez 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linette Lopez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

NortonAngo (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Paris Marx. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EnergySage 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnergySage (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Edward Niedermeyer has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. UnTixic (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tesla Autopilot, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Boring Company § Edit Reverting on positive additions - Negative Bias. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QRep2020. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Paris Marx, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]