User talk:Quartet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is not an administrator.
This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.




Welcome!

Hello, Quartet, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs).

Contents

Spam

Hi Quartet! You seem to have a particular interest in ridding Wikipedia of spam.

I'm afraid you're mistaken in a number of your nominations - although not incorrect with at least one about them needing speedy deletion (just for other reasons).

Please would you read this page which explains about spam on Wikipedia and how to deal with it. You might also like to join the WikiProject on spam to help fight the good fight. You'd be very welcome!

Please be aware that when new users appear and immediately start a crusade against something on Wikipedia, other users tend to smell a point being made and may start looking into the possibility of sockpuppetry by a disgruntled user who already has an account. To avoid that happening, please follow guidelines and also consider broadening your editing.

Thanks and happy editing! 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, and I thank you for the welcome. I realize that I won't be making many friends by nominating certain advertisements masquarading as articles for deletion - however I feel it will make Wikipedia a much more credible source of information that is untainted by corporate bias. Regards. Quartet 03:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on my page. The fake "banned" tag on my talk page was funny - the last resort of a feeble mind. Yankees76 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Quartet 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I know it seems like I might be jumping in on a long-running situation of whose history I have no knowledge, and that's true, but it's always good to have another pair of eyes look at a situation. Unfortunately, the internet is a place where no matter how much banning takes place, some people are always going to get through. Stay diligent and thanks for my responding kindly to the use of "you two" and not taking a side. I personally think you are by far a more competent editor on Wikipedia. If ever you see me getting in a situation like that, I expect you to do the same to me :-D. JHMM13 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I'd actually signed up to Wikipedia to start removing what I saw as corporate advertising on here, and got unintentionally dragged into this scenario, which to be honest, is a waste of my time - but not something I care to burn a blind eye to. Thanks for the kind words. Quartet 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Email

Set up your email - there are users who need to contact you. Yankees76 03:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

(to Quartet) No problem. Please let me know if he returns or if you want your talk page semi-protected. BTW, the anon isn't vandalizing, he's just evading his block/stalking. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion of blocks. Khoikhoi 00:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Soybean

Thanks for the heads-up. --Steve Summit (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. --Quartet 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You didn't violate 3RR, especially since I just changed WP:3RR as such [1] :-p --Deskana (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem, that's what I'm around for. --Deskana (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33 CheckUser case

Feel free to add anything to this case that you see fit. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty complete to me. Pretty sure the majority of those will show up as the same person. --Quartet 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

psamtani

Hi Quartet. I wasn't intending to add nonsense to the page. There is definitely a cult-following of MuscleTech's advertisements on forum.bodybuilding.com - I was merely reporting the phenomena. I did not vandalize any articles. Psamtani 20:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Got a source beside a link to a discussion on a bodybuilding forum? Please see WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia only accepts material published by a reliable source. Please don't re-add this material again. Thanks. --Quartet 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Burgz33

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Burgz33 again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! --Quartet 12:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up, but Burgz33 is still around, I just reverted a bunch of attempts by one of his IP address to have some of his sockpuppet accounts deleted. Oh, and your friend ECRidah8991 is probably little treytrey as well. Cheers. --Yankees76 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've seen enough, I'm tagging him along with 679ß09tfgbfn (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets of Burgz33 (talk · contribs) . The evidence is so obvious. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah you're right, but you know what? I don't care. I honestly don't want to waste any more time on Wikipedia douchebags. I just want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Everytime you tag a sock, he comes running to my talk page whining pretending I can't see the obvious - like I'm so obtuse that I can't tell he's a sockpuppet. I saw ECRidah8991 was Burgz from his first edit - you didn't need to point him out for all to see. All this guy is doing is looking for attention. Do what Cambridgebayweather is doing and just ignore him. Admins will block him as needed.--Quartet 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Point taken. Cheers.--Yankees76 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the easiest way to end this is..

Have an admin delete all my user account pages, socks, ips, etc. And I'll only edit constructively under an IP. Because me and you both know, I'm going to edit anyway. You can treat it as a normal IP, revert if needed be, block if making disruptive edits. That way there will be no more preteen drama on wikipedia. This got old a long time ago, as you can see I've only been making constructive edits. Lets be level headed about this, wouldn't you consider that the best option? Izz0Lite 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You wish. I don't deal with people who make homophobic and racist slurs. You're a blocked user for a reason. What you've done in the past just doesn't go away because you think you'll be able to edit anyway and we should just let you. You want to end it? The best option is for you to leave Wikipedia like indef blocked users do.--Quartet 03:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
I noticed that your edits on the Met-Rx article were impressive and so I've decided to award you this Editor's Barnstar! Wikidudeman (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Creatine vs HMB

Oh I see, you removed HMB from Strength training because you like Met-Rx and they produce Creatine but not HMB? Even though HMB is beneficial and a natural product, unlike 99% of the placebos marketed. Effects of beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) on exercise performance and body composition across varying levels of age, sex, and training experience: A review.

Actually, that review has a reference to a study which examined studies between 1967 and 2001, and of over 250 supplements, only creatine and HMB had sufficient data supporting their ability to enhance LBM (lean body mass) and various indexes of performance.

As to that "outdated" remark about HMB, I do not know what it means. "Seldom used"... maybe because it is expensive?

I do not use, sell or market HMB or Creatine currently, but I have been actively researching and reading studies (pubmed.gov etc.) for maybe three years, and if we ignore doping, HMB seems like the most promising supplement in strength training.

Bork (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Groundless uncivil accusations (that you're basing on what? editing history?) aside, HMB is simply a poor choice of inclusion in a sentence of ergogenic aids that only lists creatine and steroids otherwise. Wether it works or not, with only a small handful of mainstream companies even marketing it, and without a single best-selling supplement consisting solely of HMB, it's safe to say that HMB is not a widely used ergogenic aid (and hasn't been for 10 years) which is the reason why I removed it from the sentence. In my opinion, an unimformed enyclopedia reader would be mislead into thinking the product is widely used by weight trainers to aid in muscle growth, when in fact that's far from the case. In fact it's safe to say an average Wikipedia reader would not even be familar with HMB, and certainly not on the level of the other two ergogenic aids mentioned (and one could include whey protein as a more commonly used supplement). The addition of HMB into this article is frivolous and it was given undue weight so I removed it. --Quartet 22:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So can you clarify -- because average Wikipedia reader does not know about HMB, it must not be mentioned? Not even a link to the page, where they could read review of 129 studies and decide for themselves is HMB worth trying? Sounds like Chicken-and-egg_problem. It is also not mentioned in Bodybuilding supplement, will you delete it from there if I add it in there?
Wikipedia user with normal brain function can decide by himself or herself is it worth buying, it is not like they buy all the things mentioned in Strength training.
Besides, why do you care is it "widely" used? The page says "Some weight trainers also use...". That means two or more.
And it mentions steroids, is that what you want novice Wikimedia users to start experimenting with? Because you seem to know popularity of these substances, how much more popular 'roids are than HMB?
Whey / protein was mentioned there already. It is also Common knowledge.
Four stages of acceptance:
  • 1) this is worthless nonsense
  • 2) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view
  • 3) this is true, but quite unimportant
  • 4) I always said so.
—JBS Haldane
Bork (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
First off Bork, please watch your tone. Assume good faith that Quartet is interested in improving Wikipedia. Your subtle jabs are bordering on incivility.
Secondly, the article on strength training is not intented to encompass fringe sports nutrition supplements such as HMB. The mention of ergoenic aids is in passing only and meant to be used as an example - which is why only a few sentences are devoted to them - there are other articles that cover them in more depth. A reader of this particular article is meant to assume that creatine and steriods are widely used - the list provides two examples and the sentence is kept short purposely in part to avoid a long rambling list where every editor adds what they perceive to be an important supplement. Adding HMB to the top of the list ahead of creatine and steroids as you have done serves only to give, as Quartet has mentioned, undue weight to HMB, which does not reflect reality. The reality is HMB is a niche supplement used by few if any weight trainers and is more a curiousity left over from the 1990's and Bill Phillips than a commonly used ergogenic aid. Certainly it's worthy of mention in Bodybuilding supplement in the proper context.
Finally to address steroids. Yes, they're more popular than HMB,[1], with more than a million useers in the United States. If HMB had a million customers, I doubt this conversation would be taking palce. And you're pushing it a bit suggesting the mere mention of steriods as an ergogenic aid in Wikipedia will prompt "novice Wikimedia users to start experimenting with" them. The prevailance of steroids in everyday culture makes them almost common knowledge. --Yankees76 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this will simplify why I removed HMB. Saying that "Some weight trainers also take ergogenic aids such as HMB, creatine or steroids to aid muscle growth." is the same as saying "Some people in the 1970's enjoyed hard rock bands, such as Captain Beyond, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath." If I were to read that sentence, I'd assume that Captain Beyond enjoyed the same level of success as Zeppelin and Sabbath, when in fact they were just a minor cult group. Does that paint a clearer picture? It has nothing to do with past pages I've edited or your own affection for HMB, it just doesn't belong. Plain and simple - and I'm not going to discuss it here any futher (take it to the article's talk page - not mine). If you feel like adding HMB to Bodybuilding supplement, be my guest, however note that other editors may also remove it, the same way that nitric oxide supplements were removed some time ago.[2]--Quartet 02:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Hey there! Thanks for your addition to Fighting in ice hockey. I just wanted to remind you to mind the reference formatting in use in an article when you make an addition. This article uses Harvard referencing. I fixed the citation you added to be consistent with the rest of the article. Happy editing. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm still getting the hang of refernce formatting. --Quartet 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the revert. --Yankees76 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Burgz

Do we have a positive checkuser yet? Would you be able to contribute to a new report if we're lacking one? That would make it easier to do outright blocks. However, given that all of the IPs that are stalking Yankees originate from St. Louis, I think we have a pretty good probably cause to block more liberally. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I'll start putting some stuff together. Cheers.--Quartet 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)