User talk:Daniel Quinlan/Archive2

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:
 * Category:Protected against spambots
 * Administrators'_noticeboard
 * m:Talk:Spam blacklist

-- 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], [BusinessWeek], and [The Times of London].

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: 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)
 * 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.

RE: FOX News Article explanation
If you bothered reading the entire section on [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. 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 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 . For the full vote see Three revert rule enforcement. - BrokenSegue 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 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)

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 Beyoncé 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 Beyoncé's publicist was behind this--and that ridiculous quote, attributed to Simon Callow, was probably written by Beyoncé 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)

RE: re-directs for Oliver Hazard Perry
I have fixed all the re-directs, except yours, for Oliver Hazard Perry; moving "Oliver Perry" and "Oliver H. Perry". WikiDon 18:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Rosicrucian article
Dear user Daniel Quinlan, as I have seen an edition of yours at the article Rosicrucian, I come to request your support to this article that I have just purposed for nomination at Featured_article_candidates. May you may give a look into it? And, if you consider it acceptable, then may you support it? Thank you! :) --GalaazV 02:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirection of Scani
Hi, I've been helping in the disambiguation project. One of the topics I've been disambiguating is Skåne (Scania). I've noticed you've redirected Scani to Scania, however I think this is incorrect. In the Sceaf article, Scani is described as a island, and Scania is not an island. Of course in heroic legend there may be inaccuracies, but there are islands near Scania that may be candidates.

Wikistress
Hi, I see from your user page that your Wikistress is high. Sit back, relax, put your feet up and have a cup of java from us at Esperanza. :^) Maltmomma  (chat)  17:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I echo Maltmomma's comments. If there is anything I, or any other Esperanzian can do for you, please let me know. -- Essjay ·  Talk 18:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello Daniel Quinlan, I saw on Esperanza that you are suffering under high stress. Do you require any assistance, is there anything that can be done to make you feel better? Gryffindor [[Image:Flag of Austria (state).svg|20px]] 22:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

acoelomate (and all variations)
You have links that need revision due to recent merge of acoelomata and pseudocoelom into body cavity. TheLimbicOne 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished business
You and I have unfinished business, Quinlan. Be a man. Let's settle this. Vincent Vecera

update for you
I ran across your user page while cleaning up links following a few merger/re-writes. I just wanted to let you know, because I'm wary of editing people's user pages. --TheLimbicOne (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * body cavity
 * was coelom, pseudocoel, accoelomate (and a bunch of variations of those words)
 * symmetry (biology)
 * was bilateral symmetry, radial symmetry, and symmetry in nature

Peter Camejo
I just wanted to say thanks for your reversions on this page. It's extremely high ranking on google right now for Camejo and has an attacker going at him daily on there.Bov 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Anubisuto
Why do you believe this user is the same as User:666thebeast and User:Some guy 1234567? His single edit to The Used was very different from those of the other two, and neither of the other two were involved in Royce Rogers. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

speedy of Ipeeontheseat
If you speedy an article which was on WP:AFD, the correct procedure is not to blank the AfD subpage, but rather to close the AfD per Deletion_procedure. This means puttiing SPEEDIED as (whatever) at the top, and  at the bottom. I've done this for you for the AfD in question... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like you fixed things before I managed to save this last note. :) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy, BTW. I would have called it an A7 rahter than a G1... but it was a bit of both.  Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Roberts Photo Size
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I tried to explain my aesthetic reasons for the picture size in the Discussion section of the Bush Supreme Court Candidates entry. BoBo 23:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

did not answer some questions
At the time of your comment here I was still thinking about one answer (to Tony Sidaway), which I have now done. I think that's the lot of them. Are there any I've still missed (or any additional questions you'd like to see answered?) :-) Kim Bruning 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR
If you want to revert to a shorter version, why not pick the 2002 version? That's very short. :) Ashibaka tock 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Charr
In your User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects6c you have a link to Charr. The disambiguation at the top of the Charr page was getting too long. So the article is now at Charr (Guild wars) and the Charr page is now a disambiguation. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian Procrastination Club
Why was this page deleted?

Charismatic
Hi, Daniel, I noticed you removed the word "Charismatic" from the articles on Oral Roberts and Kenneth Copeland, citing NPOV. While I am no particular fan of either of these gentlemen, you should know that in the context used, the term is describing the fact that they are part of the Charismatic movement, not that they are great preachers. H2O 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...
I added to your Gaming wikipedia page. Hope you don't mind, but it's an easy way to make the intent of the page (or at least what I hope the intent was) much more obvious. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 15:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope the intent was to poke fun at the hypocritical and inept rules that govern Wikipedia editing. Fossa 01:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Date links
Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rules of the Game
Hi,

I am primarily editing the German Wikipedia, but you're spot on over there, too. The "some argue" rule will at some point in time be swallowed by WP:Weasel, but, who cares, you just cite some fruitcake who was blogging away his fantasies.

What's missing a bit that it'd be useful to befriend Raul654 or Musical Linguist, but I think that's advanced rules. Also, don't forget WP:IAR as a joker. Fossa 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems on Synthetic fiber
I have a couple of questions for you at Talk:Synthetic fiber. Thanks. —Caesura(t) 19:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DELETION OF POIZUNUS BIOGRAPHY
Hi,

why did you erase the biography for beatboxer poizunus? if you could read you would have noticed that the page wasn't placed in vanity...it was placed by his management. you would have also noticed this note in the user:talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poizunus

"I rewrote this article to conform with WP:NPOV specifications. Wickethewok 15:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)"

what caused you to override the editors work after reading that? do you follow the beatboxing scene? do you know who the pioneers are in each country?

please explain why this page was deleted. i would really like to understand how an artist can create a bio on wikipedia and not have it deleted because the editors refuse to do research. if you need proof that poizunus is a real artist then feel free to search him on any search engine. he's been actively performing around the world for 3+ years now. vanity?...performing in germany...miami...new york? uk? those are more factual statements to me. do some research!!!

I deleted the article according to the guidelines for speedy deletion, not because of NPOV. NPOV is not a valid reason to delete a page.


 * Criteria_for_speedy_deletion (CSD: A7)
 * Notability (music)

I think the page easily qualified for speedy deletion on both counts. A google for the name only returns 596 hits, most of which are copies of Wikipedia, pages put up by Poizunus or his (your?) publicist, free downloads, etc. I don't see any evidence that he is (you are?) notable (yet).

Daniel Quinlan 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What would be evidence that he is "notable yet"? An by the way I just checked google at 11:57pm EST for the name "Poizunus" and there's about 4,030 results.

Silentboom 00:02, 04 August 2006 (UTC)

Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion Havl 22:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting to know Havl. Also as of today August 18th 2006 9:36am EST "poizunus" generates 4,510 results on google.com.

Daniel your response in this matter would be appreciated. There doesnt' seem to be any valid reasoning for deleting Poizunus's biography.

For the record this is Poizunus' management. Could you provide us information as to how and where would be the appropriate place to post an artist biography where it wont get randomly deleted?

Silentboom 00:02, 04 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article met the criteria for speed deletion. CSD A7.  Period.  End of story.  That's all that is required to delete an article on a band or a music artist without any discussion.  (Google hits are not why I deleted the article or how I could be swayed into restoring it, but 4,510 results on google is supposed to sway me away from CSD A7?  That's it?  Any random person can get 100,000 google hits, not 4,510.)  It's possible that reason A7 for speedy deletion was wrong, but not a single reason has been given for why it was incorrect.  Daniel Quinlan 03:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki disambiguation
Hi Daniel - the Wiki disambiguation pages with links (the abolition of..) lists "Greek Orthodox Church" as a target. Can you redirect to an unambiguous page, please? Thanks for your help.

Tamapo redirect
On your list of redirects you have an entry for Tamapo. This article is about to be rewritten, and has been moved to Tamapo'uli'alamafoa. I didn't want to mess with your page but if you could fix the link - Cheers Kahuroa 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

redirect project
Hullo...you have a potential redirect for manuae => manure. please don't do that. :-) I've made a disambig for "Manuae", which is the name of two different islands in the South Pacific...  Tom e rtalk  21:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Userspace edits!
I've seen things get pretty nasty over userspace edits recently, so I just thought I'd drop you a line saying I edited something of yours. Revert me if you'd like the header to stick. Miltopia 13:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear Daniel—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers.Tony 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming
User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming was deleted out-process, but then restored and nominated for at MFD here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming (2nd nomination). It's already received two speedy keeps as I write this. BlankVerse 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Loved the gaming article
Someone just pointed this out. Loved it. My only criticism is that it missed quite a few tricks. For example, a citation that doesn't support what is claimed in any way. Reference some erudite journal that is not online, of course. Few people will check it. And if someone does, even better. Then you can have a long-winded argument about whether the citation does support your claim or not. Be very polite and courteous, indeed helpful, but don't budge an inch. Use bizarre tricks of logic and obvious sophistry. Pretend to forget anything you said before, and shift your ground as often as possible. So long as you appear to be in utmost good faith, this will enrage your logically-minded enemies, who will soon lose their temper and curse and swear. Bingo! They are blocked. Best. Dbuckner 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great article! This is the first time I see these things explained this way.  I've seen some of these patterns, and made some guesses as to what's really going on at times, but had not connected the dots yet.  Thanks, and keep up the good work.  Turgidson 22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The piece is a masterpiece that could - and should - be expanded and published outside of Wikipedia. C.m.jones 04:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great essay. I'd like to see you expand it by explaining the more advanced tactics within meta-wikipedia space, among admins, etc. Also, what's the relation between gaming and trolling? HG | Talk 02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:M3a1.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:M3a1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —xyzzyn 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Silesian language
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Silesian language, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Silesian language fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: {delete} because we should transfer article under correct name or I ask to transfer article Silesian (Polish language) under name Silesian language - in unison from ISO. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Silesian language, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Daniel
Don't get those Nazi bastards get you down mang. 8-) Also I hope you backed it up because it was a wonderful article. --75.100.7.49 07:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Horse gait
Years ago you contributed to Horse gait; I have been working on several related pages and would welcome your help. See Talk:Horse gait. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

you might want
to look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Collect/z It appears similar to one of your interests. Collect (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Daniel Quinlan/gaming
I've tagged this page as humourous to make clear it's not to be taken as a serious guide on how to game the system. If you DO mean the guide to be taken seriously you of course within your rights to remove the tag, however I will then probably MFD the page as contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Exxolon (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but no thanks. The page has already been through two or three trials and has come through each time since not everyone is as intent on political correctness as some people.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Zachary Taylor
From the history of the article on Zachary Taylor, you appear to be a notable contributor to it. As a result, I thought you might like to get involved in a discussion I have started on the talk page concerning a proposal to change the main picture in the infobox:  If you do get involved, thank you. Terrakyte (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:DavidRiceAtchison.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:DavidRiceAtchison.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

James Shore
In article for Le Monnier it is written that he visited England in 1748, and, in company with the Earl of Morton and James Shore the optician, continued his journey to Scotland, .... Is it possible that Shore stands for James Short? I am asking you since on your user subpage of redirections you have written: "James_Short - James_Shore". I guess it is possible that Short had waited Le Monnier in England (he worked in London since 1738) and accompanied him to Scotland. Best regards. --xJaM (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Burr, Sr.
Clicking on "earliest" in the page history, your entry comes up, suggesting that you're the one who created this short page.

I'm wondering what the source is for your claim that Jonathan Edwards co-founded Princeton (then College of New Jersey) along with Burr and Dickinson.

Most Princeton historical sources name Burr and Dickinson, but not Edwards, even though the last of these three became a president of Princeton.

If you have a source, please refer me to it. If not, perhaps you can explain where the statement came from.

Thanks.

martindo

MSU Interview
Dear Daniel Quinlan,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance 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 Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects2
User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects2, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Daniel Quinlan/redirects2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dweller (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858) 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 Articles for deletion/Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My song, "Tools"
You just stay around to keep the tools, you just stay around to keep the tools! You think that we're all fools, you just stay around to keep the tools! Making minute edits every year, you make minute edits every year! We can see it's very clear, you make minute edits every year! Users such as yourself who make a significantly low amount of edits just to keep your administrative tools sicken me and many others. Just give up the tools already!!! What are you holding on to them for anyways!! What a selfish thing to do!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.113.246 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 08:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Block review
I'm concerned that your block of User:89.240.136.178 was a violation of WP:INVOLVED; it appears that you blocked an editor during a content dispute at Honkbal Hoofdklasse.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe my actions were consistent with WP:INVOLVED because I was only acting in an administrative capacity to handle vandalism.
 * Some background: Yesterday, an editor made a page protection request for Honkbal Hoofdklasse which I actually declined because it looked like a content dispute initially.
 * I looked further today and I realized I had made a mistake in my assessment (although I think page protection would be premature at that point), but I wasn't quite ready to call it vandalism. I thought it was possible that multiple people were collectively mistaken into believing the source material was factual because it's presented that way in the source video. Basically, I tried my best to assume good faith.
 * Right after I made that edit and talk page note, I realized it was actually one person vandalizing the page from 4 different IP addresses (single article focus, same ISP, same country, similar edit summaries, etc.). I warned the 4 IP addresses involved and if you look at their replies and edit summaries, it is clear that they are trolling. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that after declining the report at RFPP (as an admin action), you then entered the content dispute by posting your opinion of the content in an edit summary and on the talk page. Once you've done that, outside of blatant vandalism and BLP issues, many community members see that as taking on the role of editor. Putting the admin hat back on after engaging content-wise is concerning, which is why WP:INVOLVED is policy. I can see your argument regarding the IPs ultimately ending up being a troll (or two), but there are plenty of active admins around who can review and do the blocking if need be. As you didn't provide a block message on the IPs talk page, and as it is only 1 of 5 blocks you've made as an admin, it had all appearances of using the block button in an edit war as opposed to blocking a troll, regardless of the validity of the block. --  Ponyo bons mots 23:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely understand your concern, especially given that I forgot to leave a notice. Thanks again. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Joke political candidates/disruptive editing
Hey,

I now feel like more of these joke political candidates are going to appear more and more with Gen Z-dominated social media, who are the ones who know how to use Wikipedia nowadays too, who are the ones who know how to use Wikipedia nowadays. Perhaps I'll advise to semi-protect all election articles from now on to protect articles from these self-proclaimed candidates by Gen Z? Thanks! Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think preemptively protecting election articles based on limited number of incidents is probably premature and I doubt there would be much support for the idea, but it might be worth having a discussion on WT:Notability (politics) to include additional guidance on candidacy "announcements" that are so far in advance of an election that they become difficult to believe or that are based on a single social media post. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Updated my wording at WT:Notability (politics) to say that I prefer additional guidance. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)