User talk:Quick and Dirty User Account

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Quick and Dirty User Account. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! meco (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, meco. Live long, and prosper.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * __meco (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hellofa
Greetings Quick and Dirty. That was an incredible copy-edit. I don't believe I missed a nuance of its magnitude; though I am certain that I have. A composite quality of your person escapes the frail cover of anonymity; exposing you as a professional writer of the highest echelon. I won't pry; but I am honored! I hope we can collaborate on some things in the future, and I offer my account, as an open door for you; if ever I may help you, in any way. With esteem, -- My 76  Strat  (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * “Is there no limit to the wonderfulness of your mind.”—Kelly Robinson
 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Quick and Dirty. I hope you are, and have been well. I was reminiscing in meditation recently and remembrances of your editing prowess reminded me that I meant to keep in touch. If you get a chance, and the subject suits you, look at Boston Marathon bombings and consider adding your style of copy-editing. Cheers, My76Strat (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K., thanks, I shall take a look. I hope that you have been well also.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Acholi people
Ngunalik (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Hi please do you know any administrator who could help stop two users who are vandalizing the article Acholi people. They remove sources before edition is complete and bearing in mind that getting article for African history is not easy. Majority of the time the history is oral, therefore when one struggles to find sources, they should not be deleted based on bias. This article is being vandalized by so called Zionists. You cannot believe the way these two users are behaving one is Anonymous44 and another is Parkwells. If you know any administrator that can help step in it would be very good. Regards Ngunalik (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Iri maber, Ngunalik.


 * I’m sorry that you are having this difficulty. I’ve looked at the revision history of the article, and its discussion page, and there does appear to be an edit war going on. The dispute seems to boil down to what sources should be considered reliable. This subject is discussed on the page about Wikipedia’s guideline for identifying reliable sources. I take your point about the difficulty of finding published, indigenous sources in Africa; however, for the purpose of editing articles on Wikipedia, sources must still meet this guideline. Additionally, adding text with the intention of adding sources for it later will only cause you headaches; as you have seen, content will soon be removed by another editor if it does not have a citation to a source that is, in that editor’s opinion, reliable. If you believe that your edits are being reverted without cause, then please read the section “Handling of edit-warring behaviors” on the page about edit warring.


 * Incidentally, I’m guessing that you speak Acoli, so you might be interested in the proposed Acoli Wikipedia, which is currently in the testing phase. (I speak just a little Acoli. A dear friend of mine who is from Atiak is teaching me.)


 * Iri maber bene,
 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
That was a little sloppy of me --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Only a little. ;)  —Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Thanks, . And a Nanaimo bar to you.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Quick and Dirty User Account, Yummy. New one on me.  I could love Nanaimo bars all day long. Thank you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, thanks so much, .—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks for your many good edits. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please change your username
Your username can look like a vandal, I almost reverted one of your edits. 13:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice, . However, I have been using this username for several years, and no one has previously expressed concerns. Regarding Wikipedia username policy, I don’t believe that my username shows “a clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia” or is confusing. As quick and dirty implies, however, I did not intend to use this username on a long-term basis, and I have been intending to change it for some time. I just haven’t got around to settling on a new name and changing to it yet.
 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Richards Copy-Edits
Greetings QDU, I have recently become aware of your work involving copy editing on the article of Stephen Dee Richards, and I just wanted to let you know that it is appreciated. There are a couple of minor portions of the edits you did that I am going to fix just to get it up to speed in clarity and conciseness. In all, you did some fine work, happy editing.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! I appreciate your appreciation! I was going to just make a few tweaks to the article, but as I was doing so, I kept noticing more opportunities for improvement, so I decided to just go ahead and copy-edit the whole thing. I shall continue to work my way through the article, and I welcome your collaboration and improvements. Live long and prosper!—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking over the adjustments you made, I noticed some repetition in the notes that are given at the bottom of the page. Continuous starts such as "One account gave the..." could be reworded in each of the notes given, although we can keep one of them. Just thought I'd let you know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * O.K., thanks, . I have avoided (and removed) some repetition in the text, but I actually was deliberately making the footnotes consistent. Of course, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.&#x2002;:)&#x2002;—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

That is true. I combined three of those footnotes into one since they are from the same source. That way it is more consolidated. My next task for this article is to find another alternate image of Richards, which is quite a task since I was only able to find one other one that I requested from the Nebraska State Historical Society. There was a source that reported a wanted poster of Richards but I do not know if it survived. Other than that I am going to sift through a bunch of records in order to find at least one more image on the guy as well as tracking down his family (Parents and siblings). All of that is going to be a pretty hefty task which I why I have attempted to enlist another user to help with that, whom I am still waiting for confirmation from. We shall see. Thanks for the help and happy editing.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update, . Until I went back to that section later, I didn’t realize that those footnotes were all referring to the same source; since they do, it makes perfect sense to combine them. Anyway, I have completed my revisions, and I leave the article in your very capable hands. Happy editing to you also.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and happy editing.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

A quick Question
Hello Q&DUA, I have a quick question in regards to the Richards article. I am considering adding a small bit of information in the Pathology section that expands upon some details as to Richards' lack of empathy. Here it is and tell me what you think (please note that there will be citations to this information if added to the article):

Up until his execution, Richards was often questioned as to the reasons behind his lack of empathy and remorse towards his victims, to which he would give conflicting answers, or refusing to answer altogether. Richards would commonly cite his earlier association with individuals of low moral compass, including his time working as an assistant at the Mount Pleasant Asylum as having some influence upon him. When questioned by the Nebraska State Journal on how he could commit such heinous murders, especially that of the Harlson family, without feeling any remorse, Richards recounted an event, which he claimed had taken place during his childhood, where he was tasked to kill a litter of kittens. Richards stated that after he had bashed each of the kitten's heads against a tree, he discovered that he had felt no remorse for doing so, claiming that he found the entire experience "fun". In spite of this incident, Richards was adamant that he did not enjoy inflicting pain upon others and was considered kind while in his youth. --Paleface Jack (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The information looks like a good addition. Here’s my copy-edited version:


 * Numerous times between his arrest and his execution, Richards was asked why he had no empathy towards his victims or remorse for his crimes. Sometimes he simply refused to answer. When he did choose to reply to this question, he gave conflicting responses. He would usually cite his associations with people of questionable morals, and his time working at the Mount Pleasant Asylum, as deleterious influences. When The Nebraska State Journal questioned him about his lack of remorse for the heinous murders that he had committed, particularly those of the Harlson family, Richards recounted an event from his childhood. He had been tasked to kill a litter of kittens, and did so by bashing each of their heads against a tree. After he had killed all of the kittens, he found that he felt no guilt about it, and in fact found the killing "fun". However, he adamantly claimed that he did not enjoy inflicting pain upon others, and that in his younger years, other people had considered him to be kind.


 * Thanks for soliciting my help. Happy editing.
 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Help and Collaboration
Hello Q&DUA, I just wanted to do one more question in regards to the Richards article before I get to the other reason I wanted to talk to you. In my research into the guy, I have found that Richards' name has sometimes been reported as Samuel Richards rather than Stephen Richards. Although I have that name listed under the aliases in his infobox I was wondering if I should also include that in the lead section or in the article itself? The other thing I wanted to talk to you about was the possibility of collaborating with me on a couple of different articles as I try and get them up to GA and FA status since your style of paraphrasing and copy-editing is more in tune with my writing style. Feel free to let me know if you are interested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * On the Richards article, I guess that the question is, how many sources give his name as Samuel, and how reliable are they? If only a few, apocryphal sources give the alternate name, then the mention in the infobox should be sufficient. The other end of the spectrum would be the existence of enough credible sources to actually call into doubt whether Stephen or Samuel was his correct name, in which case that should definitely be addressed in the article. Even if the reference to Samuel in a source is clearly in error, if there is other information in that source worthy of inclusion in the article, then the source’s use of an alternate name could be mentioned along with the pertinent information from the source.


 * Yes, I would be interested in collaborating on other articles with you, if you don’t mind my slow pace; I just work on Wikipedia in spare bits of time. Just let me know the next article that you would like to work on.
 * Thanks,
 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking over some of the sources, one lists the name as an alias. I did a brief search and found that several newspapers would call him Samuel rather than Stephen. Richards did state in his biography that his name was Stephen although I do not know if I would count that as credible. It is really hard to figure out which one is his real name and I do not know how to really address that in the article. After I figure this all.out we can talk about collaboration with other articles.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, if you have that much doubt about his true name, I would mention the uncertainty in the lead. Here are a few suggestions:


 * Stephen Dee Richards (March 18, 1856 –April 26, 1879) [. . .]




 * Stephen Dee Richards[include sources for this name] (March 18, 1856 –April 26, 1879), also known as Samuel D. Richards, nicknamed the "Nebraska Fiend" and the "Kearney County Murderer", [. . .]




 * Stephen Dee Richards[include sources for this name] or Samuel D. Richards (March 18, 1856 –April 26, 1879), also known in the media as the "Nebraska Fiend" and the "Kearney County Murderer", [. . .]




 * I hope that that helps.


 * Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I looked over the sources and many of them just say Stephen D. Richards so I might change things a bit. After sending this for FA review I am going to start working on the Billy article which you are welcome to help with.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2020 (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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council
Thank you for the copyedits that you've made on this article! The Challenges faced by the UMSC sections reads much better now :) BaduFerreira (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You’re very welcome! I’m glad to contribute.— Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Teraphim
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragments_of_teraphim_%3F_plaques._Wellcome_M0008432.jpg
 * Hi, Thanks for adding your image to "teraphim," however, it was more appropriate for "Asherah" so I've moved it there. Were the plaques labeled teraphim in the source? Temerarius (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just made an edit to the caption of that image. Someone else previously added the image and original caption.— Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)