User talk:Quadpus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Quadpus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U-Dub

Two questions regarding pronouciation (please dont take offense to these, its not the point). 1) How do you phonetically say it, and 2) what is your cultural and ethnic background? By that i mean, where are you from originally. I have only heard it refered as U-Dub but that definitally doesnt mean that that is the only way it is said, so please let me know. And yes, U-Dub is verifiable, it is the unofficial pronounciation by UW officials/students/alumni, etc. Thanks.--Gephart 02:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

The wikEdlogo

Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayday apology

OK. I've stopped putting redundent dates now. I've read the pages more carefully and fixed my mistakes.

A message from 202.95.200.3.--202.95.200.3 08:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I noticed you rv the silly edits by Dr Who. Thanks, I couldn't keep up. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page Edits

I reviewed the policy. You actually have a lot of latitude for reverting your own talk page. As for the other thing... I was mistaken. Nice talking to you anyway.--Dr who1975 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Maxime Rodinson

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.178.138 (talk • contribs)

[edit] John Waihee and Ben Cayetano

Hi, just wondering what the issue is with Dr who1975's edits. When then-Lieutenant Governor Waihee successfully ran for governor in 1986, Cayetano was his running mate. And Cayetano succeeded Waihee as Governor in his own right in 1994. So I'm not sure why "merging both boxes makes no sense," because his edits look OK on a factual basis. Thanks. KeithH 17:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging the boxes together makes the order of succession less clear, not more clear. Can you give any rationale for doing it that way? The only time that makes sense to me for using the "two to one" boxes, etc is when a single office or title is divided into two, or vice versa. I see that Dr who1975 is far from the only person doing this so I'm going to lay off him, and perhaps bring it up on Template talk:Succession box. Quadpus 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Quadpus... I thougth maybe these two edits were a mistake on your part when we were debating the Impeach G.W. Bush thing but I see now you have it in for me no matter what I do. This is basically an aesthetic change that you reverted (twice!). Beyond that, using the one to two succession box in this manner is something that is in use on a bunch of pages (Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, etc.). It makes the succession box less clunky looking and less repetative. Furthermore, I cannot find a rule that prohibits them from being used this way. In fact, others have reverted your edits on this without my intervention.--Dr who1975 18:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I reverted those changes because I believed them to be a misuse of the 2-to-1, 1-to-2, etc, succession boxes. It might be less repetitive, but it is also makes it less clear. I don't wish to go around making mass changes the way you are doing though, unless there is a consensus, which I might try to build if I have time. Quadpus 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You make mass changes without concensus all the time. This is practically an example of it.--Dr who1975 19:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I invite you to read WP:BOLD.--Dr who1975 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings...

Hello, Quadpus! Thank you for reverting vandalism to Wikipedia. After you revert, I would recommend also warning the users whose edits you revert on their talk pages with an appropriate template or custom message. This will serve to direct new users towards the sandbox, educate them about Wikipedia, and a stern warning to a vandal may prevent him or her from vandalizing again. Thanks! :) --Qwerty (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I nearly always do so. thanks. Quadpus 20:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War on Terrorism

No sir, you see, that comment was exactly as I described it. It was both anti-American and anti-semitic. Wikipedia is not a place for kooks to have a forum. And second, do not revert my text, since I put it there for a reason. Judgesurreal777 08:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section removed from United States National Academy of Sciences

User:Kborer may be objecting to the removal of the Criticisms section from United States National Academy of Sciences, and is requesting comment on Talk:United States National Academy of Sciences#Criticisms. Could you address some of his concerns by adding a comment? / edgarde 17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Russia and Saddam WMD allegations

Dear Quadpus, you just deleted a lot of references that satisfy WP:SOURCE. You deleted a lot of well referenced text. Finally, you deleted sections "Neutral" and "Criticism". These sections are necessary to have NPOV article. I think that kind of editing is inconsistent with WP policies. Could we at least discuss such changes first at the talk page? Thank you.Biophys 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. These changes were actually made by Vlad Fedorov, and you only restored his version.Biophys 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger into Bush White House e-mail controversy

Could you review (and perhaps improve upon) the renamed gwb43.com article, and see if it incorporates all relevant content of the 2007 White House email controversy? Thanks. Yellowdesk 13:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] publicintegrity.org spam

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. diffs [1] [2]

Normally I Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars but I've decided to make an exception in your case and return the favor [3]. Cheers. (Requestion 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] WTC 7 Collapse

I've made the talk section. Please respond. Thanks --David Barba (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image:Azuretek.png)

You've uploaded Image:Image:Azuretek.png, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.