User talk:QuirkyAndSuch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, QuirkyAndSuch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Powers 13:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 4, Issue 23 — 2008-06-02

Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents

[edit] Userpage

I fixed up your userpage a bit. Hope this helps. — Nathan (talk) / 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sugarcult

Hey, I noticed that you wrote on the Sugarcult talk page regarding the lack of a Tim Pagnotta article. As you can see from the links, I've cleaned up and rearranged/rewritten most of the Sugarcult article, and created a Tim Pagnotta article. It's a little thin on content at the moment though.. I've also cleaned up the Marko 72 and Airin Older pages (no page for Kenny or Ben yet). Just thought that you might be interested! Apollosfire 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review on Sia's album

Hi, you said about adding the review to the Some people have real problems page, well, either i can do it for you or i can show you how, its up 2 u Breathe again (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tri-Cities, WA

I didn't "add" the Tri-Cities to the Washington template. It existed in previous versions of the template. I merely restored it after it was deleted by another editor without consensus. I provided a rationale on the talk page (and noted this in the edit summary), although apparently you didn't see that note. It's right above yours. Apparently other editors agree with me; at least, Matt Yeager does, as he kept the Tri-Cities in the template and moved it to the fourth position on the list. I still maintain that it belongs there. I know it doesn't meet the legal definition of a city, but it is culturally defined and accepted as a city in Washington, and I see no reason to privilege the legal definition over the cultural definition. In an ideal world, it would be listed as a "metro area," but we don't have such a section on the template. I know it's not a perfect solution, but the Tri-Cities is more of a "city" than a "region." Feel free to take it up again on the talk page or edit the template if you disagree. Maybe we could ask other editors to step in to come to some consensus? Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Help with user

Hi, QaS. The first step is to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If nothing there seems suitable to the situation, then you may want to try a Request for Comment, which would be a way to determine if the situation is one that merits more formal action. Powers T 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC

Hello. Since you were the nominator for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton, you should be active during the discussions there. You also should help out fixing some of the mundane formatting problems usually brought up during FAC, such as the references problems noted by Ealdgyth. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Official

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to in your comments. Can you please clarify (please put your comments immediately after the section to which they pertain for the sake of clarity). If you need to split my comments to make it more clear, you have my blessing. — BQZip01 — talk 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I responded to your comment. Have a nice day! — BQZip01 — talk 21:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] FAC query

Please follow up here; I am not an admin, I believe you are misunderstanding policy, but Blnguyen will be able to answer your questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just in case you actually are doing this in good faith.

With [1]. you threatened to "report me." Please do, if you think my action improper. However:

IP from that range (87.112-87.115) is extremely rarely in use on Wikipedia by anyone other than User:Fredrick day. Further, he stalks me, his appearance in the AfD is quite unsurprising. His interest in the ad-hominem issue (my alleged COI) is also characteristic. The AfD is now heavily damaged by (1) your ad-hominem irrelevancies in the nomination. The nominator created the article, but following suggestions that had appeared in Talk for Instant-runoff voting. He did not create the large bulk of the content. Further, the issue of my alleged COI due to a supposed association with the Center for Range Voting has come up many times. COI editors have been blocked in edit wars occurring with the IRV article. I was not. There is no basis for the charge. I have no affiliation with the Center for Range Voting, no control over that site, I am merely a writer whom they have quoted. On a couple of occasions they have asked me to write, and I did. And I also criticize the work of CRV.

The article is not a POV fork, see WP:FORK. It was created by someone with familiarity with that guideline and through a consensus of editors, as the guideline suggests. If any of us believed that it was intrinsically POV, we'd have prevented it. At times, the content has strayed, as content in articles on controversial subjects can do. The solution is to fix the content, not to delete the article!

Getting this article going, sometimes well-known arguments have been given without attribution. Attributing these takes a little extra work, that's happening.

But as to Fredrick day, by reverting my strikeout, you are now, indeed, acting as a meat puppet for him, but I'll continue to assume that this was not intentional. Nevertheless, there are now a number of irregularities with this AfD, and I expect to see this on AN/I in any case. To list them:

(1) You nominated and notified certain editors only. Not the editors who had contributed the most, but only three editors: two of whom are known proponents of IRV: the previous AfD nominator, an SPA as described before, editor Tomruen, who has expressed reservations about the article, from the beginning, though he did not oppose it. (His sarcastic vandalism of a section header in the article was actually a major initial argument in that AfD, i.e., it was taken seriously, as if it had been connected with the purpose of the article.) And one editor, a supporter of IRV by his own statement, but not active since October of last year. This has the appearance of vote-stacking, since very active editors, such as myself, were not notified.

(2) You listed the former AfD incorrectly, making it difficult to find.

(3) You made, with the nomination, ad-hominem arguments that were actually irrelevant, leading to some reasonable suspicion that there were other motives behind the AfD.

(4) You made a specious argument about the edits of Fredrick day. Yes, *theoretically*, the IP could be someone else. But IP is routinely blocked, temporarily, on less evidence than exists here. Take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and at talk for that page, there is a list of IPs he has used. Very rarely, we see an edit that *may* have been other than him. Maybe two years ago or the like. He has known interests, targets he attacks, and I and the creator of the article are two of them.

(5) Without cause, you struck out my comment about the sock. Comments like that about probable socks are totally appropriate in AfDs, they are for the convenience of the closer. You also restored, effectively, comment from a sock, becoming thereby responsible for it.

(6) You !voted in the AfD. Nominators do not vote in an AfD unless they *change* their implied Delete. Nominators generally make a !vote comment, explaining the reason for the AfD, with the nomination, so a !vote later is, in fact, duplicated. Nominators, instead, as need arises, add comment or clarification, not an extra !vote.

All of these, individually, could easily be explained by naivete or innocent coincidence. But as the "mistakes" pile up, something else starts to appear. Be careful, this is almost certainly going to see wider review if it closes as Delete. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd likes to threaten people like you - he's implying you are me (fredrick day) - he has threaten an number of editors previously and was warned off by a number of admins - if he persists with his threats, I suggest you head over to AN/I they are familiar with his behaviour (and what else is "be careful" but a implied threat)? --87.112.3.62 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, if I thought Quirky was Fredrick day, I'd be filing an SSP report. Fredrick day's modus operandi is to get users riled up at each other. He deceptively describes what is happening. I have not accused you (QuirkyAndSuch) of being a sock, though, to some degree, you may be assisting one or two of them, perhaps without realizing it. WP:AGF requires me to assume that you are sincere in this, and I have little difficulty with that. So far. Please, Quirky, before you believe a word he says, review his history, why he was blocked, and what he did before being blocked and after. If you think I'm wrong about the article, fine. That's not a problem. But changing comments gets a bit edgy. Fd made that comment in an attempt to gain your sympathy, and to pursue his usual "If it looks to me like Abd wants this, I'll try to stop it." I could have simply deleted it, that's legitimate for someone like Fredrick day. He doesn't really care about the article or policy. Don't fall for it. (Likewise, I've written that it is very unlikely that you are Yellowbeard. If so, Yb has changed the way he works. I don't make sock accusations unless there is very strong evidence. 87.112.x.x, posting like this, is a sock of Fredrick day, it's totally plain to anyone who knows the editor, and it's likely that before the day is out, that IP will be temp blocked, though he changes it so often that sometimes admins don't bother.) (admin: if you see this, you have my permission to remove it with the sock edits above. I'd remove it myself if I didn't fear that QAS would object. It's his Talk page, he can keep what he likes.) --Abd (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My choice for nomination is totally independent. If you review the instant-runoff voting I believe you'll find that both praise and criticism are integrated into the article. And because of this, I think it is a bad idea to have this second article that only highlights support and objections towards this voting type, not matter the importance. Too much trivial "pro and con" information is added to this second article in an attempt to make it fuller. This is intuitive, but not what wikipedia is for. Only notable arguments should be integrated into the original article, not everything that anyone says for or against this voting type.

And I did not "vote twice". Nobody would be allowed to have their vote counted twice no matter what. I feel you're being paranoid about this, and making a big deal about nothing.

And the reason I have not been using wikipedia as much in the past as I am now is simply because I have had a lot of extra time lately. I had delt with psychological problems in the last few years that I have just recently gotten better, and because of this I have a lot of extra time, and it annoys me that you assume my using my account more is some sort of red flag. I don't like your accusations or implications, you've been very passive agressive towards me simply for not agreeing with you. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Given what you wrote, all the more reason for you to be very careful about what you read into my writing. I don't "assume" that your account "is some sort of red flag." I'm testifying that it looks like one, to some degree. That doesn't mean that it is. Just to let you know, Yellowbeard did vote twice in an AfD... Does that mean you are Yellowbeard? No. Get this, QAS, No. I think it extremely unlikely. Yellowbeard also canvassed for No votes on my RfA. He was blocked for it. He also was quite uncivil, easily casting accusations of bad faith. You wrote in the current AfD that I lied. That could get you blocked, QAS. I didn't lie. Even if I was wrong, I didn't lie. And I wasn't wrong, because I was testifying to my perceptions. You may draw conclusions from those perceptions that you don't like, or that you know aren't true, but the conclusions are yours, not mine. I.e., you invented the "lies" by assuming bad faith and then you ascribed them to me. Look again, see what you see. If I lied, what statement exactly was a lie? I think that, if you are careful, you will find that it wasn't what I said, but what you thought I was implying.

The most serious appearance about the AfD is not the extra !vote -- which I already wrote was very minor -- but the apparent canvassing. Who did you notify about the AfD? Did you notify me? Why not? I was a major contributor. I wrote this (and it was moved to Talk, improperly, actually, but that's Wikipedia):

QAS notified three editors of this AfD, specifically, Tomruen, Yellowbeard, and Paladinwannabe2. The first two are supporters of IRV (Tomruen has listed himself as associated with a chapter of FairVote -- this is not a charge of COI, but merely a note regarding his expressed positions, and Yellowbeard's position is clear from arguments he has presented in his many AfDs and other behaviors) and the third has not edited Wikipedia since October 2007. From his single edit to the subject article, we might guess he is a supporter of IRV, because he gave an unsourced argument commonly made for the method. Single edit? Why did QAS notify those three editors, and not editors who had made far more edits?

Well, if you look at my contributions, I notified everyone who made an edit to either the article or the previous AfD, except for the three you notified. Neutral. What you did would almost certainly be seen as canvassing, and that's what Yellowbeard was blocked for. Again, does that mean you are Yellowbeard? Of course not! And you've accused me of bad faith, of using the article to promote my own political agenda, when, in fact, the article was created through a consensus of editors, including several IRV supporters. Tomruen has gone back and forth about the article, you can see that in the current AfD, he voted similarly before. Tbouricius is a strong supporter of IRV. The article has improperly sourced material throughout it, but, in fact, that isn't POV imbalance, it is simply incomplete work on sourcing. As the sources are added, the text will change somewhat.

You also removed strikeout from an edit of a known abusive blocked editor. If you look at other edits from this editor in the period, you'll see. This was not a mistaken identification on my part. He follows me around, that that particular IP shows up in a place where I edit is quite definitive, routinely, IP addresses are blocked with less evidence. He is a particularly nasty character and vandal; he was blocked when he slipped up. He'd been using the IP edits to defame and stir up trouble, while editing in not quite such an uncivil way with his account (User:Fredrick day). And he was signing these IP edits, at that time, with "Section 31."" Well, one day he forgot, and he made an edit while he was logged in and signed it "Section 31." He was already accused of sock puppetry by another user, that sealed it immediately. Now, he's said he has other accounts. They may be long-term sleepers. So, perhaps you can understand that there is some suspicion that can come up. If you look at the history of the article you AfD'd, you'll find User:MilesAgain. A sock of User:Nrcprm2026. Who previously edit warred in the IRV article as User:BenB4 and User:Acct4, and who tried to get me blocked with another sock puppet created for the purpose. (Fairly stupid, actually. It called attention to him and not only was he blocked, but so was Rob Richie, the Executive Director of FairVote, who was edit warring with an IP address, and Terrill Bouricius, who had quite possibly been recruited by Rob Richie. I welcomed Bouricius, and acted to get him unblocked. He's sometimes a bit of a pain, but ... if we are to find NPOV, we need representation from notable POVs. And Tbouricius is it for IRV, and so is User:RRichie, which is Rob Richie come in out of the cold, finally registered an account.

Anyway, there was a lot of history underneath what you AfD'd. Right now, it looks like it may come out Merge and Redirect, delete looks very unlikely to me. Notice that Yellowbeard voted. As usual, "Strong delete," in the edit summary. A number of experts and knowledgeable editors have voted, and they are voting keep. You might think about that. The article was inadequately sourced, but the arguments that were presented were notable, and I'm familiar with the sources, and add them as I have time. I've added sources for pro-IRV arguments and for con. My personal political belief is that truth is powerful, and I'd be horrified to find that I distorted the truth by making deceptive and imbalanced arguments. I make mistakes, though. And my friends tell me. In that sense, some of my "enemies" are my friends. So, QAS, consider where you stand. I'm not threatening you. If I wanted you blocked, you've done a number of things that could have landed at WP:AN/I. But that's not normally how I work, particularly if someone is attacking me. If they are attacking someone else, yes, I'll do it, and have. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)