User talk:Daniel Quinlan

Archived discussion: Archive1

Please use section headers and add comments to the bottom. Thanks! — Daniel Quinlan

Infinitely grotesque

Hello. Your insertion of the grotesquely incorrect phrase infinite keystrokes where infinitely many keystrokes was meant shows that you failed to understand what you called the "pedantic usage note". I've corrected it. Michael Hardy 00:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No comment necessary. Daniel Quinlan 00:09, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

header title chosen by Cyan

Place name wars

When I said yesterday other users are much more brute and insulting, this comment was not meant to target at you. I hope you did not understand it that way. -- Baldhur 08:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart

I consider your protecting of Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) in order to enforce your offensive POV title to be an abuse of sysop powers. ☮ Eclecticology 09:58, 2003 Dec 11 (UTC)

I protected it entirely according to the policy, I have not been involved in the debate nor did I make any choice as to the title, I merely protected the page where it happened to be when I became aware of the move war. And in the vote I proposed and set up, I even voted against the current title. I think you are overreacting. Daniel Quinlan 19:01, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Bonnie et al.

On whose authority did you delete Bonnie, Jayne Bryleigh, Bryleigh's Theorem, and Slope field, without first leaving them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for five days? The deletion policy sets out what categories of articles may be speedily deleted, and as far as I can see none of those pages fit into any of the categories. The explanation in your deletion summaries ("nonsense from repeat vandal" and so on) doesn't really help. Vfd is the place to debate whether or not something is nonsense, unless it is pure gibberish (stuff like "uyggiuyg", which anyone can recognise as nonsense), in which case the deletion policy explicitly allows immediate deletion. If a page has the surface appearance of sensible text, then it should be listed on Vfd. One person's judgement should not override the consensus of the community. In these cases, it seems pretty clear that the consensus after five days will be to delete the pages, so why do you feel the need to bypass discussion by the Wikipedia community? The only motivation I can think of would be if you thought the community would end up disagreeing with you, but I don't think that is likely here. So why not just follow the policy? -- Oliver P. 21:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The pages exactly fit into the categories for speedy deletion under the deletion policy:
pure vandalism, see my documentation of these IP addresses on Vandalism in Progress
patent nonsense, read the definition which includes: Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.
Not one, but two valid reasons to speedily delete. In addition, the one person who originally expressed concerns that the Bonnie page might not be patent nonsense has withdrawn her concerns and has agreed that the page should be deleted. I'm not overriding the community at all and I'm not violating policy at all. You are violating policy by undeleting pages which are patent nonsense. This particular vandal (who may be Michael) has vandalized so many pages that it's not supportable to undelete these articles or even list them on Votes for deletion. It seems more like you're the person continually overriding the consensus of the community, especially in these cases. I will not reciprocate by laying disingenuous motivations at your doorstep, though. Daniel Quinlan 21:40, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've brought the matter of "vandalism" up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, so hopefully that will be clarified before too long. Please feel free to comment there if you want. Basically I don't think that the list of candidates for speedy deletion was intended to cover pages that appear, on the surface, to make sense. Such articles need discussion to ascertain whether or not they have some merit. And the articles we're talking about here certainly weren't patent nonsense. As they stood when you deleted them, they made perfect sense. And were actually quite funny. :) As for your final point, I wasn't accusing you of having bad motivations. Apologies if it seemed that I was. I meant that I could only think of one possible motivation, and then I dismissed it as being unlikely. So, even if I concede that the deletion policy can be interptered the way you interpret it, I am still left wondering... Given that there is some disagreement, what is so wrong with allowing the matter to be up for discussion for five days? What possible harm could it do? -- Oliver P. 23:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unprotection question

Can we unprotect Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) so as to move it to Elizabeth Smart (1987-)? - Hephaestos 04:15, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, done. If I may be so bold, think this is one case where protection worked well. Otherwise, I suspect we'd have 5 more redirects and no consensus. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Redirects

I try to fix those every time I make a move; sometimes there are quite a few. I'm wondering if I got all of Prince's today. Usually though it's just not a big deal. - Hephaestos 04:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I've just moved the page about Lagos, Nigeria to Lagos (Nigeria, and turned the original page (Lagos) into a disambiguation page. I'm now going through and correcting all the pages that link to it. Yours is among them. I've adjusted the LAGOS link on your REDIRECTS page, so that it will open correctly. I hope you don't mind. ((David Cannon - 21 January, 11pm GMT)

Western canon

About your changes at Western canon: do you always make drastic changes to an article where there has been no discussion for a couple of weeks? I'm a little appalled at what just occured here. -- llywrch 02:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just being bold. Do you think a NPOV canonical list can be produced? Daniel Quinlan 04:31, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Welcome Thank You

Thanks for the welcome, Dan, and for the help on some of my recent articles. I hope to have time to stop by frequently and expand the encyclopedia. Garnet R. Chaney 17:13, Dec 13, 2003 (Malaysia)

I was looking through the list of most wanted articles, and decided to tackle the American Museum of Natural History. Does this have enough info now to not be considered a stub, or should I leave the stub boilerplate at the bottom? P.S. I looked through the help, but I couldn't find a good style guide or boilerplate of how to talk about a place. Garnet R. Chaney

I think it was borderline before wetman's last edit. I've definitely removed stub warnings from articles of that length and I rarely add bother adding them to articles that long. It's a judgement call. I try to gauge it more on content than length, but usually, anything below about 400 bytes in length is going to be a stub. Daniel Quinlan 21:51, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Nation State

You wrote on VfD that

'nation-state' means something else.

but it sounds to me like the recent history of how it has been used in List of nation states and Nation state is consistent. (Or did i screw up interpreting the page-histories of the pages and redirect?) I intend, unless someone else starts a discussion of this on Talk:Nation state or somewhere else off VfD, to do so and reference it by responding to you on VfD. I'll undertake that from a library, with The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World ~~(or is it something like "...World Politics"?)~~ at my side. Of course a sketch of the differences you have in mind would be helpful. --Jerzy 16:01, 2003 Dec 13 (UTC)

It seems like a very fuzzy definition indeed. I'm not really sure the word is used in this way or applied to those countries in this way now. I've always seen the word used in the context of historical earlier forms of states. The fuzziness and possible non-NPOV of our definition and how it is being applied concerns me more, though. Daniel Quinlan 22:07, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm less certain, after thinking further abt what you wrote, that my research is relavent (note title fix above, BTW), but still in the dark. Do you find Nation state fuzzy, or some implicit definition you want to infer from List of nation states? --Jerzy 12:59, 2003 Dec 14 (UTC)

Acting Sheriff

There weren't enough votes in favor of deleting Acting Sheriff. You suggested merging it. Merge with what? I think it would be better as a redirect, but I'm not sure what to. Angela . 20:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

sign I must have thought it was a dictionary definition for some reason. That should just be deleted. Daniel Quinlan 22:07, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Rick Santorum article, and working cooperatively

Are you willing to try working with me on Rick Santorum, or are you only willing to use oppositional methods? --The Cunctator 04:38, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I tried and failed. Daniel Quinlan 03:13, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

You'll be missed

:'( It won't be the same without you. I really hope you reconsider and come back after a break. With sadness, Angela . 03:41, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely -- you've been one of the most thoughtful and reliable contributors here. Even if you have to take a break for a bit, I sincerely hope that you'll stick around. And if not, thanks for all you've done. BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

While I fully understand your reasons for departing, I nonetheless hope, that you might change your mind. Remember that we will have the arbitration committee, and the situation may become better then (hopefully that does not sound too naive). Please think about it and consider returning, Daniel. Thanks. -- Baldhur 07:24, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Good Heavens! Do come back! (please). Pfortuny 13:06, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Agreed - you're sane. Secretlondon 13:08, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Daniel, i can hardly claim to know you or your work, but our peers' testimonials are sufficient for me to also hope for your return, to presume to say so, and to leave me concerned whether my questions added to your burden this week. Be well, be happy, and come home soon. --Jerzy 14:37, 2003 Dec 16 (UTC)

The damn Santorum article highlights some real problems with this project. Now the problems the article has brought to the surface have been a factor in three people leaving so far. The problems it highlights won't go away and will have to be dealt with sooner or later. Sorry to see you go almost as much as I was sorry to see me go. --- Ark30inf

Those of us in the neutral camp (surely far more than a few? just seems lonely sometimes) will miss you very much. I hope that we will indeed see you return: common sense is not so widespread a commodity that Wikipedia can easily afford to lose an editor possessed of it. Best wishes regardless, Jwrosenzweig 22:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please Daniel do not leave. I disagree with your views on some issues, agree with you on others. But you always been a thought-provoking contributor. I hope your experience on Talk:Mother Teresa did not influence your decision to leave. What was done to you was distasteful. I'm sorry for inviting you onto the page, given how you were treated. Please don't leave for that reason. In any case, the best of luck in whatever you decide to do. And thank you for contributing so much to wikipedia in your time here. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't let the likes of TC cause your departure. There are many more folks who respect your work than not. Hope you'll be back soon. Fuzheado 23:21, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I certainly understand and agree with your reasons for leaving, and maybe a vacation is just what the doctor ordered. Wikipedia was better off while you were here. So, enjoy your time away from the Wiki, and here's to hoping it doesn't last too long. —Minesweeper 03:22, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dissapointed to see that you have left Wikipedia. Hope you change your mind. Dori | Talk 14:12, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

Since you greeted me in wikipedia, I consider you my chaperone :-) I am interested whether the following text suites and permissible for wikisource, and if yes, where are the upload instructions.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1948cominform-yugo1.html

I am intending to use it for missing Cominform and Informbiro articles. Thank you, Mikkalai 22:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

invitation

Please see Talk:American twenty dollar bill. You get this invitation because your name appears in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (US vs American). Feel free to ignore if you are disinterested. - Optim 05:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, there have been some suggestions that we need to start cleaning out the old requests posted to Wikipedia:Peer review. You are receiving this because you have posted one or more requests that have been there a long time. When you have a moment, please check it out and remove the request(s), along with any related material, if you have received adequate feedback. Thanks! -- Wapcaplet 23:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)| talk)

Welcome back!

Woohoo, welcome back Daniel! Dori | Talk 14:53, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is fantastic to see you return. - Mark 04:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm so pleased you're back. I hope you find the place has improved over the last year and that the things which drove you away are well on their way to becoming fixed. Angela . 12:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, great to see you back around the place. If you find it better, then fantastic! If not, I'd love it if you posted somewhere (my talk page, a subpage of your userspace, wherever) what it is you still see lacking. I respect your opinion and would consider it carefully. Meanwhile, hope to see you around. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PL/I protection

Please don't unprotect this page for the time being. This spambot is very difficult to deal with... currently there is no solution other than leaving the page protected indefinitely (even for popular-topic pages like PHP and PL/I). It's a very serious problem that can't be solved by traditional means (spam filtering on linkspam URLs or blocking IP addresses), because nearly every new attack uses a different IP and a different linkspam domain than before. We tried unprotecting PHP a few days ago and it got 67 spam edits in 10 hours before being reprotected. Apparently this bot is also hitting non-English Wikipedias and other wikis such as MeatballWiki.

See:

-- Curps 11:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Judgment Night

Hi, I noticed that you have a link to Judgement Night on your redirect project page. I moved the article for the 1993 movie Judgment Night to Judgment Night (movie) and thought I'd drop you a note about it. The IMDb lists the movie as being spelled "Judgment". So anyway, just thought I'd drop you a note about it... Dismas 06:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jospin's Trotskyist past

Hi there. Thanks for the NPOV help.

Yes, the Trotskyist past is true, as is Jospin having lied about it. See these pieces from the [BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1899029.stm)], [BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_25/c3737078.htm)], and [The Times of London (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-235553,00.html)].

Also, if you can read French, the French Wiki article on Jospin covers this topic as well. LeoO3 05:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the Jospin discussion page is the more appropriate one to discuss this issue? I'm still a newbie. LeoO3 05:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in the United States

I updated VfU summary on this article with these new points:

The main concern about the article was its title, but it was originally at the proper title and moved in November, 2004.
There are many redirects to that page and there is no way to trace them unless the page is undeleted.

Please review your vote, or at least provide a constructive way to adress these concerns, especially the last one. This is a stock message, but I replied to each voter individually on the VfU page. Thanks in advance. Grue 05:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE: FOX News Article explanation

If you bothered reading the entire section on [PIPA Counter-arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FOX_News#PIPA_Counter-arguments)], you would have noticed that I have already explained a long time ago why I think they are unjustified. Ethereal 10:10, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-American Sentiment

Sam Johnson is probably the best known anti-american of the 18th century and deserves mention. That he thought (early) Americans were thieves and hypocrites is uncontroversial and I can't see how my contribution was POV. The quotes used are both well-known. Marskell

Kent State

Daniel, please see Talk:Kent State shootings#Recent reversion. Consensus seems to be that your recent reversions are unwarranted. I welcome discussion, but the wholesale removal of good content is not helpful. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Soundfiles

Hoi,
I saw you remove soundfiles from articles with the justification that it was not standard practice. You must agree that it is not vandalism and, frankly how is something to become standard practice if it is nipped in the bud ??

People who do not know a language are not able to pronounce a word just by seeing it written. For words in other scripts we already add how it is written, so why not add what is sounds like when it is pronounced in the local language?? GerardM 13:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cantus/WP:AN/I

No, that's the right place - why don't you go ahead and repost it? Noel (talk) 12:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aristocracy reverts

Is there something I'm missing about reverts to this article? As it stands, it seems to me to duck the central question a person might refer to the page for - to understand what social group is being referred to when the aristocracy is mentioned. Material I added addresses that aspect of the topic. Your revert is the second time someone saw fit to remove my modest contribution without comment, despite requests on the article's discussion page for clarification. Sorry if I sound peevish, but if I'm committing some kind of gaffe, I really need to understand what it is. Should I be creating an Aristocracy (social category) page instead? Adhib 10:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. Your answer addresses only my Trustafarian link. I thought it made sense in the context of the Aristocracy as a social group paragraph that you also excised, since Trustafarian is a popular culture term for aristocrat - both denote a person living on 'independent means' - the interest from property accumulated by their family. Was the paragraph on Aristocracy as a social group merely collateral damage sustained in the squelching of my admittedly populist link, which I accept not reinstating, or did you have specific concerns about that paragraph, as well? From User_talk:Adhib

Some anonymous user

Please stop the stupid "retaliatory reverts" of unrelated articles because of your disagreement on Ronald Reagan. You restored a plain falsehood on Congo (it wasn't the former French Equatorial Africa, it was just a part of it) plus an unimportant and possibly misleading mention of Mobutu (who was in power years before he named the country Zaire). Pointlessly raising doubts about edits such as on Christmas Island is not constructive either (you can easily verify it yourself if you cared to do some research, or else don't raise doubts where you don't have the slightest reason). 63.209.14.211 14:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, 63.209.14.211 listed you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and a brief summary of the Reagan page history indicates he/she has a point. Take it easy, will ya? -- Viajero 23:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see the comment on the talk page. In any case, everyone has different things they find satisfying to do on Wikipedia; why don't you spend time on things that give you pleasure? Getting involved in draw-out POV battles over articles like Pinochet and the like is a sure-fire recipe for burnout. -- Viajero 00:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation

You are blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Refdoc 00:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When exactly did this become policy? Anyway, the most interesting aspect of this is how Wikipedia (myself most of all) can be completely gamed by a "new user". Time for another vacation. Daniel Quinlan 01:10, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking for 24 hours became policy on or about November 27, 2004 [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AThree_revert_rule_enforcement&diff=7923936&oldid=7917088). For the full vote see Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. - Broken Segue 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, you're right, the 3RR is a pain in the buttocks in that it is gamed against the first reverter. But keep in mind it does not apply to reverts of simple vandalism. Don't leave again because of an obnoxious admin. - Mark 01:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR rule has been around for some time. I do tend to block people for 24 hours instead of fiddling around with short blocks. 24 hours are quite short anyway. Most people are perfectly aware of what they are doing. I also do not tend to read the pages involved - as I really do not care who is "right" and who is "wrong" in an edit war. If this upset you than I am sorry. Refdoc 19:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals

Hi Daniel, I was so free as to move your name under participation from an action list for work on improving chemicals articles to the now active Chemicals Wikiproject, one of the Chemistry wikiprojects. That old action list is now much updated, and being worked on, so it don't hold participants names any more. Gladly I invite you to further participate on the work. If this name move is incorrect, my apologies, and feel free to delete you from that wikiproject. Wim van Dorst 08:24, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC).

writing of history on wikipedia

Hello Daniel, I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including the writing of history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan Fragaszy

jfragasz_at_gmu.edu

Re: Wikistress

I think I know how you feel. I tried to edit the article on Beyonce Knowles, and it said my edits had been classified as "spam"--it seems like the celebrity industry has found a way to undermine the very spirit of Wikipedia--methinks Beyonce's publicist was behind this--and that ridiculous quote, attributed to Simon Callow, was probably written by Beyonce herself. It may be that Wikipedia is a failed first experiment--there may need to be further research done to establish set guidelines for editing, so that axe-grinders like Buckshot can't cause so many problems--can't use Wikipedia for their own selfish purposes. Right now, there's too much freedom in Wikipedia. There may need to be some sort of (dare I say it!) hierarchy in order for Wikipedia to function properly--we may need people to sign contributions so that this or that writer's bias is out in the open--put the kibosh on anonymity, in other words, or at least make it so no one article is "protected" except by general consensus.

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Dear Daniel Quinlan, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan"

User talk:Daniel Quinlan

Infinitely grotesque

Place name wars

Elizabeth Smart

Bonnie et al.

Unprotection question

Redirects

Western canon

Welcome Thank You

Nation State

Acting Sheriff

Rick Santorum article, and working cooperatively

You'll be missed

invitation

Article Licensing

Welcome back!

PL/I protection

Judgment Night

Jospin's Trotskyist past

List of schools in the United States

RE: FOX News Article explanation

Anti-American Sentiment

Kent State

Soundfiles

Cantus/WP:AN/I

Aristocracy reverts

Some anonymous user

3RR violation

issues about school articles

wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals

writing of history on wikipedia

Re: Wikistress

Re: Wikistress

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

Personal tools