User talk:Doc Quintana/Archive 4

Another Question
Apols for delay, I've responded, User talk:Chzz - I hope I got the gist of your q; if not, I'm happy to write more, of course. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've archived my answer in Archive_23#Another Question - hope you see it though. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 04:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just getting back to you
I've been pretty busy lately, and haven't had time to answer the question you asked me a few weeks ago. However the times that I do read ANI, I don't see your name there very often, and when you are there, you don't try to wrap the whole thread around you, so I wouldn't worry about people getting bad impressions of you as a drama-maker. (And I'm not saying that White Shadows was guilty of that, either ... just that I was worried he was heading in that direction for a while.)  —  Soap  —  23:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the nice introduction :) Augustun84 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I involving Nineteen Nightmares
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

RfA
I've replied.  Connormah  •  talk  23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
 Hello , thank you for participating in my recent RFA. I have taken all your comments into consideration and will make sure that I do it right if I plan on doing another RFA. Also, please do have a look at the comments made by other editors and myself, regarding this RFA. Thank you again, and have a nice day! Rehman(+) 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Re;Catalonia-geo-stub
Hi DQ -the problem is one editor going against the consensus of how to handle stub templates for Spanish regions - by editing the one most likely to cause an edit war. My comments at User_talk:George_McFinnigan_ie explain the problem fairly clearly, I think - but then again I thought my earlier comments to him had explained them as well. As an admin, I should simply have protected the template completely in the first place, but the edits are so sporadic (two weeks apart) that probably wouldn't have done any good, and in any case, I've edited this template often enough (including banging heads together on the last edit war on it) not to be regarded as a totally impartial admin on it. Grutness...wha?  22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

 * Get a better Internet connection?  Diego Grez  what's up?  22:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fast enough already, I need something faster. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can try using Twinkle to revert vandalism and Friendly to warn vandals. Enable them from the Gadgets tab in your preference or by add them to you skin script file. Use the helpme tag again or ask me if you need additional help on this.-- Forty two  Thanks for all the fish!  23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an idea. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Adminship essay
Promoting an essay into a policy or guideline is a legitimate idea, when its use has already become standard. But there's also a risk: some users may write something, label it as policy or guideline, and then demand it to be followed. To avoid the risk, it's an standard procedure to deny any such promotion made by a "bold" user, regardless of how much acceptance does the essay have. It must be discussed first, and only labeled afterwards. The main placed to start such a discussion are Village pump (proposals) and Requests for comment.

Note as well that there are policies and guidelines. Policies are instructions that users must follow, and guidelines are instructions that users should follow. This essay, as well as any other about how to make strong or weak opinions about something, is unlikely to ever reach policy status. I may, however, be accepted as a guideline. Weak reasons may be ignored by the other users, but you can't forbid to formulate them. Any user is entitled to have an opinion, even if it is a "weak" one, as long as it isn't a personal attack or fails to follow some etiquete policy or guideline MBelgrano (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Belgrano, I admit I didn't expect it to stick. I would like RFCs more if they were a bit more organized, they can tend to go off in tangents and become unconstructive. I think that essay is a subdivision of the personal attack policy, I wonder if that would affect things if I tried to gain consensus for it as a policy positively or negatively. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert "Bob" J. Giuda‎
Thanks for paying attention the various shenanigans going on over at that article. I just wanted to mention that I'm not sure that last edit you reverted was a sockpuppet because it's a military IP address whereas the other IPs that have edited the article were all from the same commercial ISP. If you look at what the added text said it also nearly makes the quote from Giuda sound worse; it almost outright says that he was talking about beastiality. But not to worry, it doesn't really matter, I just wanted to FYI. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I think it's prudent to be wary of socking methods even after a checkuser is performed because any person can be operating behind any IP, and "manual socking" (collaborating with someone off-line or off-wiki to push a pov edit) can still be done despite the IP. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fir Tex
Hi, I have re-written the article following comments in the AFD debate, please look at the new version, and change your vote if you feel that your concerns have been satisfied. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a look, if it meets the general article requirements (WP:N, WP:RS, etc.), i'll be happy to change my opinion.


 * P.S -- I'm sure you already know this, but people around here don't like the word "vote", Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Editor review
I just saw that you left a comment on my editor review and, well, I'd like to thank you! See you around. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 13:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic's RfA
Ahem! Doc! You !voted twice! (I've indented your second !vote, the first was 31st support). TFOWR 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Sorry TFOWR. I'll strike it out now. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No

= worries! If it helps, the only other editor I've had to hassle about this was, so you're in good company ;-) TFOWR 21:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What! Double-voting! Maybe you can be my first block ;-) Incidentally, thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tax Increment Graph removed by doc
Doc,

Why did you remove the graph I posted on Tax Increment Financing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:TIF_graph.pdf&page=1

I am a TIF expert and the graph is 100% accurate.

It was crafted with the help of lawyers and other TIF experts.

Graphman2 (talk)GraphmanGraphman2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC).


 * Hi, please see WP:NPOV. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, I don't buy it. Not even close. I want to know who complained and got you to remove it? Where did you get the idea the graph was not neutral? Facts are neutral. The facts in the graph are certainly not what TIF proponents want known but that only makes the proponents biased, not the factual graph. Furthermore it is imperative to have the graph included because it's content is purposefully omitted or obscured by every municipality seeking to use TIF. Your removing it is enabling the very bias you seek to omit. Again, where or who did you get the idea from? 71.193.233.117 (talk)Graphman71.193.233.117 (talk)


 * Facts can be neutral, but what matters is their presentation. You could present your side of the argument in an "opponents" or "criticisms" section, but even then I think that graph has too much loaded language even then. We can discuss this further on the article's talk page and gather a consensus from the community if you'd like to continue this conversation. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Football or Association football
Hi Doc. Can you raise this somewhere centralized rather than making these piecemeal edits? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Where should I go? Doc Quintana (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Sorry I was too lazy to point you there in my original message. --John (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would an RFC be ok? I originally started trying to put in the official name because I saw that most NFL teams had the words American football rather than football, which is what it's called in the US. I think we'd need to have a conversation at all the football related wikiprojects in order to avoid bias. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe an RfC would be worth it if you feel it's important. I see your point that it transcends any one Wikiproject's remit. It will be an emotive issue for many editors so expect turbulence if you do raise it. --John (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is important enough for that. I'll work on it tomorrow. I'm fine either with locality (football being called by its local name per ENGVAR) or officiality (the specific co=de being used as a standard), but as far as i'm concerned it has to be one or the other and it has to be standardized on the MOS somehow.
 * P.S -- I apologize if i'm going overboard with the talkbacks, just want to make sure. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I do appreciate what you are doing. I don't mind the talkbacks though they aren't necessary, I am pretty good at keeping folks' pages watched. It gets you a faster response, maybe, and doesn't bother me, so no big deal. --John (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go, sorry for the delay. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam


Hello Doc Quintana, thank you for supporting my RfA! I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob Gronkowski
Please see Rob Gronkowski's talk page so we can have a discuss on the use of American football rather than just an edit war.--TM 20:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you can see above, it's already been discussed in an RFC at Talk:Football. If the consensus doesn't change there, i'll wait a few hours before going to the article again to put in the standard found in other articles to avoid conflict with you. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Question
Looking for assistance with an NPOV issue, I fear that I may break 3RR at this rate, but I feel that I cannot find a compromise with the other side that benefits the encyclopedia from my point of view, and i'm not sure what to do. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can try WP:NPOV/N or a third opinion maybe? Hope that helps. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!

IRC Question
Can anyone suggest a good IRC client? I unfortunately have Vista. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When I asked the same question some months back, FireFox Chatzilla was recommended. Since making the change, I have had far less problems which used to be associated with vista. I hope this is helpful for you.  My 76 Strat  01:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Help request
Hi, I'm wondering if I should bring this incident to AN/I. These two editors have unfortunately engaged in a bad faith campaign it seems rather than trying to find a compromise on this issue when an RFC couldn't bring a solution. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked into the intricate details, but it seems to be largely a content dispute rather than anything else. Generally you should take it to ANI only if admin attention will be necessary: if a block or other sanctions may be required against one or more editors; it shouldn't be used for content disputes. For an edit war, consider WP:AN3. You might also consider other dispute resolution options.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I put it at WP:AN (AN3 doesn't seem exactly right, it's more involved than just edit warring now, they're "conspiring against me" on their talk pages now. It's getting really silly, and I don't know how to get them to stop while fixing the problem I see on the encyclopedia. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WQA is probably most suitable, in that case. WP:AN is only for discussions which are of general interest to admins as a whole, and not related to specific incidents (which are handled by ANI). But since there's no clear need to admin attention here (that I can see), WQA is probably best; you can be referred from there to other noticeboards if appropriate.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clear cut case of content dispute

 * Just my 2 cents here, I'm not siding with my friends here but I hope that, with me being an uninvolved third party looking on from the sideline, I can offer you a piece of advice here... go read up on Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. After the due process of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the next natural step you can undertake is actually Dispute resolution. If you elect to blow it up and out of proportion by posting to wither AN/ANI or WQA, there exist a possibility that you might find yourself short-changed by your own actions later on. Note that both other parties named above had chosen to disengaged from you, and so should you from them. Also, your persistent edit warring is not helping Wikipedia one bit. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)