User talk:Quatloo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See User talk:Quatloo/Archive1 for earlier talk.

Contents

[edit] New Talk Goes Below This Line

Way to go!!! You've set new and higher standards for standards-setting!

[edit] Gregory Michael

Hi there, you tagged the article Gregory Michael with a copyright violation and i'm not too pleased. If you'd checked the page history you'll see that i wrote it and the one at imdb has copied what i wrote (i hadn't noticed this till you pointed it out). i've mentioned it on the GM talk page but i don't know if you watch the articles you tag so wanted to tell you myself. Princesskirsty 19:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

i understand that, i realise that wiki must have a lot of copyright violations. i just think that perhaps you should check page histories before you tag things. if you'd gone as far back as where the link i left in the talk page is its quite clear that i constructed that part of the article from a larger part that was there before. Now the page has a big warning at the top until admin check it. Please don't think i'm trying to come across as mean, i'm not - i just am concerned that what i wrote will now be deleted because someone else copied what i wrote and no one will take time to check the page histories like you did. Princesskirsty 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thats fab :D Princesskirsty 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Shiller

Hi, you have tagged the above as a copyright violation. Since the early versions do not suffer from a copyright violation, you can revert the article to the latest untainted version by looking at the history instead of reporting it as a copyvio. This saves a lot of time. Thanks for your interest in removing copyvios. --Gurubrahma 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sid Haig Copyright infringement

The copyright infringement must be resolved by an admin, not yourself Quatloo, the page is taken directly from Sidhaig.com, and therefore constitutes an infringement.

Wrong, sidhaig.com released the biography under GFDL. There is no infringement. Quatloo 08:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: The above issue is doubly moot, as the text in question has now been removed per discussuion on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Quatloo 08:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Karlson copyvio tag

After staring at the two articles for a while, I decided to remove your copyvio tag. To me, it seems that the Wikipedia article is different enough to not infringe on copyright - even though the same facts are presented. Please holler if you think my judgment is 'way off base... --Alvestrand 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It was a while ago but it appears I flagged it because this sentence is plagiarized verbatim: "The son of popular Irish actress Lillian O'Brien, Phil Karlson studied painting at Chicago's Art Institute." (If plagiarized sentences are enough to get bestsellers recalled due to copyright concerns, it seems that Wikipedia articles ought to be as well.) Quatloo 17:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of messing up the sentence some more. My biggest issue with this article is that it cites no sources, which makes it unverifiable. --Alvestrand 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Saberhagen

Hey man, just wanted to let you know that plenty of people (myself included) agree with your assessment of the Fred Saberhagen death/source issue. Scalzi was extremely rude, egotistical, and argumentative. Way to stick to your guns. Hexrei 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

While Scalzi was rude, not recognizing one of the giants of science fiction as a credible source of information on the world of science fiction...wow. It would be like not accepting Arthur Clarke as a credible source of information about the movie 2001, or (hey!) not accepting Harlan Ellison as a credible source of information on Babylon 5. If you're ignorant of the subject matter, you have no business making calls on something this important. Unsigned comment by 65.171.234.176, 21:47, 3 July 2007

Ever heard of a guy named L Ron Hubbard and his claims about something called "Scientology"? I suppose WP should assume that's fact too, after all a Sci-fi giant said it was.Hexrei 18:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules don't exist for the sake of the rules, they exist for the times they are needed. Rules sure as hell aren't needed when a personal friend of a person confirms their death. Unsigned comment by 71.229.204.25 21:50 3 July 2007

And the first time a "personal friend" turns out to be wrong or just a liar, you'll realize what a stupid suggestion that was.Hexrei 18:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think you were absolutely right. I feel Wikipedia shouldn't accept any source as a source until that source is vetted and okayed by two previously accepted sources. Is there a manager I can talk to? Unsigned comment by 130.76.64.15, 00:04 4 July 2007

The Resilient Barnstar
For withstanding the wrath of a Hugo-nominated science-fiction writer (a really good one too), standing your ground and refusing to to take "because Harlan Ellison says so" for an answer, I award you with what may be your first barnstar. BusterD 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But is the Resilient Barnstar really appropriate? Quatloo was dogged, perhaps, even stubborn. But resilient? Finishing with a smile? Hardly. I will commend you for not bowing under bullying behavior, true, but in the future, you might want to say something along the lines of, "a second-hand account of a message from a fellow writer cannot be verifiably true; therefore, until such time that the fact is verified by another source (such as a published obituary) we must postpone publication of a death date. Wikipedia has on several occasions been the victim of false celebrity death announcements and we must be vigilant in preventing such embarrassing fiascos." Or something like that. Unsigned comment by 4.159.56.124 04:32, 4 July 2007

Almost 2000 non-destructive edits, very NPOV and somewhat detached overall, handles this little scuffle with some coolness and good understanding of 3RR, this user deserves some nice recognition, and this particular barnstar seemed most appropriate of the standard choices. Seemed resilient to me. In retrospect, perhaps user might have called for BLP help an hour or two earlier, but all this snark aside, user protected pedia against BLP potential threat, user used approved tools within WP policies, and when assailed with ironic attacks, chose not to reply in kind. Quatloo, if you ever decide you're after the mop, remember you earned more than one user's respect this week. BusterD 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job man. There are lots of sources for news. WP is for facts. Weenies trying to get credit for posting new stuff should be resisted. Unsigned comment by Periboob, 4:50 , 4 July 2007

Rarely have I seen someone so completely owned in a conversation of Wiki. Next time try to have some common sense and you won't look like such an ass. --76.80.182.172 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A link to your talk page has been posted in this thread: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2907882 which no doubt explains some of the comments you're getting here. --Xyzzyplugh 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it? I'd actually expect way more comments, I'm almost downright dismayed at the general lack of them, be they positive or negative; considering how widely noted this fiasco has become (it came to my own attention on an IRC channel far before Fark picked it up, for example) it might show how few people actually contribute to wikipedia as a ratio to those that just lurk or view. Phil Urich 23:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia Scanner

Well, there are also a lot of wikilinks to it now. We should give people a chance to expand it. We don't have a lot of biographies with detailed descriptions of the software the subject wrote. ←BenB4 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the rate at which the discoveries it has facilitated are being described in the press, I'm confident the article will expand quickly. ←BenB4 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bit late, but...

I'm going to break with the people patting your back over the Saberhagen issue and instead say that I think you're a jerk. Regardless of policy, you could have handled that a lot better. Jtrainor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrainor (talk • contribs) 12:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sid Haig. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I apologize for giving you the warning and I won't do it again. But the information that you removed (such as Sid being in Rejects and being nominated by Fangoria) is common knowledge. Can we just try to reach an agreement on this? Can you just show me the specific information that you want changed or fixed, and I'll try to find the sources or modify them?--CyberGhostface 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: How can someone succeed to a Life Peerage???

They can't. But he was also a baronet to begin with. See the lead, about him inheriting the baronetcy from his father. William Avery 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Nazarene College category

Thanks for removing the Non-profit organizations based in the United States from the Eastern Nazarene College category. I was unaware of this. Why we don't use that category in this context, though? Did you just remove it "just because," for standardization's sake? Aepoutre 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Hope my inquisitiveness wasn't too aggravating. Take care. Aepoutre 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock tag

Please do not remove valid tags from articles without fixing the underlying issue. Quatloo 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Please do not go around applying tags to articles if 1) you are not prepared to address the issue yourself (in which case the problem has been corrected) or, 2) you are prepared to provide a detailed explanation of the article's talk page explaining the specific issues you have with the article. You've done neither. Basically you are send editors on a scavenger hunt, trying to guess what it is that offends you about the article in question. I tried to play your game at Pascack Hills High School, where you left a drive-by Peacock tag without any further explanation. I removed what I thought might be an issue and removed the tag. You in turn decided that your undisclosed issue had not been addressed, and rather than fixing the problem to your satisfaction or providing further details to explain whatever genuine concerns you might have, you reverted my edits, reinserting some of the more blatant Peacock language in the article. I am hard pressed to image how you could possibly be any more unhelpful. Your edit has been reverted, which removes the useless Peacock tag and removes some of the Peacock language that you had reinserted. You are now encouraged to start all over again, by either fixing the problem or explaining the specific language that bothers you on the article's talk page. Alansohn 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize for the revert which inadvertently did re-add some peacock text, which I did not realize (I should have more carefully examined the edit, your edit summary implied all you did was remove the tag, and I apparently didn't read far enough down the edit). However the article is full of laudatory adjectives, "winningest", "sprawling", "sharpshooting", etc. Much of the athletics section, while sourced, is largely inappropriate and probably should not be in Wikipedia. Also there is no issue with tagging articles without editing, if the tag is truthful. Quatloo 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Passing randomly through articles and leaving a tag, without any further explanation, is almost always completely and totally useless. I would say it's almost as counterproductive as seeing trash on the floor and putting up a sign to pick up the trash. If you are unwilling to either make the changes you feel are need or to provide clear, concise and specific details as to the changes you feel need to be made on the article's talk page, you have accomplished nothing other than to show that you feel you are above doing the work needed to improve the article and unwilling to provide any information that might address your concerns. Consensus is that athletic accomplishments by a school are a strong indicator of notability, providing ample justification for retention of the material. Alansohn 04:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin

I've been going through various counties nationwide, adding navigational templates. Today, I added one for Vilas County, Wisconsin, including for Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin, which was a merger of town and CDP articles, and which you had noted on the talk page that you would unmerge if you could. I just wanted to let you know that I've restored the page, and quite easily too. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such template: you simply have to take the basic wording and copy in the various statistics. You can find the LduF CDP basic facts here; to get the detailed information that's found in the geography articles, you click on where it says "show more". I didn't have to do that, however; I simply went into the page history and undid the redirection :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of sources

It is your position that the official MySpace pages of minor celebrities can never be counted as a RS? Do you typically edit pages without regard to discussion or edit history? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I will overlook the rude demeanor of your question. Whatever edit you are referring must have occurred so long ago I have long since forgotten, but WP:SPS applies. One should be reluctant to use self-published sources. Frankly if information occurs only in self-published media very likely does not belong in Wikipedia. That being said, one should furthermore be reluctant to ever use a Myspace page as a source, unless an outside reliable source vouches for the authenticity of the Myspace page -- any Myspace page can claim to be "official." Quatloo (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Victory Auto Wreckers

I see that you placed a notability tag at Victory Auto Wreckers. This place is very well-known in the Chicago area because of its long-running commercial, which has been the primary subject of multiple newspaper articles. (Do a Google News archive search for "Bob Zajdel.") I've been meaning to clean up the page for a while; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. But the business definitely passes notability standards. Zagalejo^^^ 08:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not buying your weak argument. Contents of google archive for Victory is meagre quality. Quatloo (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Elaborate? There are two rather lengthy articles specifically about the commercial [1], [2], plus additional information elsewhere (eg, the owner of the company was the subject of a featured obit in the Chicago Sun-Times. [3]) All of that should be enough to fulfill the primary criterion of WP:CORP, based on my experience at AFD. Can you actually access the sources? I should be able to access all of them, so I will clean this article up. Don't worry. Zagalejo^^^ 17:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've since added six refs to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Barnaby_C._Keeney

If you place a Copyvio notice on an article, please remember to remove ALL content from the article. Thanks. DodgerOfZion (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, one is supposed to leave the article as it is. Quatloo (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Breshna Orya

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Breshna Orya, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Breshna Orya. Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)