User talk:Quintucket#top

Hi there...You must know that "NKR" is not a republic as you say abkhasia. You put an armenian flag behind "NKR". How it can be, Nakhchevan and Nagorno-Karabakh's status is the same, but you separate it from Azerbaijan. If you did that same balance with abkhasia, please keep the flag of Azerbaijan not Armenian Karabakh Sepatare-Terrorist group flag. You did very big mistake brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adigozalov (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

:Adigozalov: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your fifth change is because you don't understand the meaning of the 3RR, but this is five reverts you've made in 24 hours. (I'm not going to put myself in danger by making a fourth revert, though I assume either CMD or another user will come along and revert you soon enough.)

:If you really believe that you have a case, you should take it up on the article talk page. Nagorno-Karabakh's status is largely the same as South Ossetia's: both were abolished by their respective national governments on account of seperatist activity, both went ahead and declared independence anyways, and proceeded to win a civil war against a respective national government (respectively supported by Armenia and Russia of course). Just as South Ossetia largely occupies the northern part of Shida Kartli in Georgia, the NKR de facto occupies the Azeri regions of Kalbajar Lachin and Yukhari Garabakh. It's not the same as Nakhchivan, which remains both a de jure autonomous republic of Azerbaijan, and under de facto Azeri control.

:Also, please try to remember to sign your posts with four tildes "~~~~". Thanks. —Quintucket (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You have added new population figures for Başakşehir, İstanbul. But the figures you have added and the figures in your source don't match.[http://rapor.tuik.gov.tr/reports/rwservlet?adnksdb2&ENVID=adnksdb2Env&report=wa_idari_yapi_10sonrasi.RDF&p_il1=34&p_yil=2011&p_dil=2&desformat=html] So I fixed them. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks. Sorry about that. —Quintucket (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I was hoping one of the users wanting to make the change would continue discussion in the "NPOV tag" section. However, I'm glad someone has. It seems a bit odd to discuss in a section titled Page protection though? Would you mind moving your comments to a new section that would make it obvious what is being discussed (for all users with a watchlist), or perhaps be willing to repeat them in a new section, if I start a new one? A discussion under a title that described what is being discussed is I feel more likely to be productive. Hopefully. CMD (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:Ah, I see you've posted in the NPOV tag section too, although it's a less thorough post. Would you prefer to talk there or start a new section? CMD (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

::They're two different points. One relates to the edit war itself—the dispute over the infobox; one relates to issues with the lede (which to me seem to be more a case of poor writing than a blatantly pro-Russian bias, though I can see how a Georgian reader might interpret it as such).

::I can move and/or copy my new comments to a new section; I'll probably copy the relevant ones if nobody's responded. The reason I responded to the page protection was because I wasn't aware that you'd asked SlimVirgin to protect it. I thought he'd protected it out of the blue, and that touched on a pet peeve of mine.

::I've seen many cases of an admin responding to ethnically motivated edit-warring by simply protecting the page, and moving on, in which the article then stagnates. The people who were edit-warring rarely discuss things and never reach an agreement, while nobody else can contribute. I then find on such articles that the edits that I'd like to make are usually minor phrasing and punctuation changes, and my options are either posting on the talk page, asking an admin to unprotect the article, or simply wincing and moving on. Unfortunately I probably tend to choose the last option nine times out of ten, and I doubt I'm the only one. Thus I've come to believe that protecting a page because a handful of users keep adding and deleting the same piece of text is a bit like deterring the squirrels who invade my mother's birdfeeder by rigging it with dynamite: doesn't really solve the problem. and causes a lot of collateral damage in the process. —Quintucket (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:::SlimVirgin initially protected it due to a RfPP I think (I didn't file the request). At this point the users trying to edit war the infobox in added an NPOV tag, although they didn't start discussion, and Lfdder had started it. The NPOV tag is because of the infobox dispute, not because of anything else (not that you'd know it from the lack of talkpage discussion), so your lead discussion is something new that hasn't yet come up. After that initial protection expired, none of the users had bothered to post anything new on the talkpage, yet one went ahead and reinserted their edit again. Not wanting to start the whole edit war process again in a futile attempt at BRD, I asked SlimVirign to protect it again, which they did. As much as I sympathise with your view, as far as I can see, SlimVirgin's other options were to let an edit war continue, or start blocking people. No option is entirely desirable, although if you have previous experience in these sorts of situations I'd appreciate advice. In my experience, if an admin doesn't use protection to enforce BRD, either the edit war goes on till those less determined (usually those objecting to the change) just leave, or the initial editor games 3RR - "My first edit wasn't a revert, you've hit 3, don't revert me again!" - and is able to force their change into an article. Temporary stagnation is far more preferable to me. CMD (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

::::I understand your position, particularly since in addition to everything else you do, I've noticed that you also do a lot of damage control. I also greatly appreciate what you do, since few Wikipedians have the patience to do it (I certainly don't, and I probably don't do half the other stuff you do). I admit I was kind of lashing out at a general tendency on Wikipedia to see page protections as a lesser evil to temp blocks, and reluctance of admins to enforce the spirit of WP:EDITWAR, possibly out of fear of being seen to take sides. (The gaming of 3RR you described, which I've seen all too often before, would seem to merit a warning followed by increasingly longer temp blocks.)

::::I still think that warning followed by temp blocking of troublesome users, and if they still cause problems arbitration and possible topic bans is a more efficient solution, since it targets the problem, but I've noticed that I seem to be in a minority on this. (I'm thinking maybe I should write a Wikiessay on my position called "Squirrels and birdfeeders.") —Quintucket (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

:::::In a perfect world, I have the feeling you'd be right. However, it seems it's not always easy being an admin (not that I have personal experience), perhaps for the fear you note. I do know that the last two AN/Is I participated in (and the only two in recent memory) both eventually went to archive without being closed, and without any action being taken. This of course makes dealing with editors difficult. Appealing to a specific admin leaves you and the admin you ask open to accusations of CANVASS. As for warnings, that's also hard without other editors. If you're the one reverting an editor, it seems slightly vindicative to me to be giving them a warning as well. If you warn them about edit warring, they point out you're edit warring (and rarely they'll even acknowledge edit warring is a two-way thing). If you warn them about BRD, something such as "BRD is just an essay" comes up. Without an admin being willing to get fully acquainted with the situation (and therefore risk being accused of being involved), and enforce EDITWAR and BRD, protection seems to be the most effective way to bring those users into discussion. If you write said essay, please include an image of a squirrel examining dynamite. CMD (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed the North section, but what about Chile? You removed Chile and yet it has a higher HDI than Portugal (which is an advanced economy!) and Eastern Europe --yang long (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

:I removed Chile from the lede because I've never seen it described as part of the "North." As the article describes, there's many factors that go into defining "North" and "South," not just HDI. —Quintucket (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

::Ok. But when Chile becomes an advanced economy, would it be Ok to put it in the north? --yang long (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:::The page is about the North-South divide. Currently I've never seen any sources that consider Chile part of "The North." Even if there were sources, we'd have to see most sources describing it as part of "The North" before we include it in the lede. As an analogy: we currently don't describe Estonia as being part of the Nordics, even though it seems to many an outside observer (including myself) that it has more in common with the Nordic countries than with Lithuania, and even though some sources have described it as such, because most sources don't. However since some sources include it, or argue that it should be included, we discuss the Estonian issue.

:::If coverage of Chile reaches the point of Estonia vis a vis the Nordics, where some source say that it's part of "The North" or should be considered as such, we'd be justified in discussing it in the lede. I imagine that for that to happen, it will likely because of closer integration of the Pacific Alliance into world trade; and/or because closer cultural ties of the Southern Cone to North America and/or Europe. In that hypothetical case want to discuss those other countries as well, even though Chile would probably have the strongest claim and be most frequently cited, just as the discussion of Estonia as a Nordic occurs often enough in the context of all the Baltics being Nordics that we cover Latvia and Lithuania too.

:::If the preponderance of sources start to call Chile part of the North, then we can consider including it in the lede. I suspect though that discussions of Chile's status are more likely to occur in the context of the obsolescence of the concept. The point is, the sources don't include Chile in "the North," and even if they start to, it will take some time before it becomes common enough that we're justified as treating as a mainstream position, if it happens at all. —Quintucket (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by YAGN LONG (talk • contribs) 23:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks. :-) —Quintucket (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kosli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Babaji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well. That's a very old edit :) And WikiCleaner isn't a "script". It simply identifies the disam links. All of the mistakes (including this one) are my own. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 04:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about the Pacific Alliance checks you have down. I did not add any references as there were none before so I figured it could be checked from the same reference previously provided. Another thing I wanted to mention was the add on of Colombia into the File:Cold War alliances mid-1975.svg on the first world side. Colombia was the only country of Latin America, besides Puerto Rico, to actively participate on the Cold War providing over 4000 soldiers according to local mediahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2013/07/130724_america_latina_colombia_soldados_veteranos_guerra_corea_aw.shtml and a little over 1000 according to the wikipedia page to the Korean War, a segment of the Cold War. From this point on, Colombia actively supported the NATO and the NATO supported Colombia due to its internal problems with communist terrorists, see FARC and ELN. Seeing that the map shows the alliances rather than the economic output, I strongly support the idea of Colombia being added onto the First World side (blue). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipeafcr (talk • contribs) 03:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Hi, why did you put the wrong colors to Argentina and Paraguay at Foro de São Paulo? Couldn't you notice that the countries in the map can only be red or blue and not light red or light blue? Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:As I noted, Argentina's ruling party is supported by a FSP party and supports the principles of the FSP, but is not a member itself. Paraguay and Puerto Rico are light blue, because there is at least one FSP party in those countries, but non represented in Parliament. Using two colors, it would have been to mark Argentina, Paraguay, and Puerto Rico as blue, which is misleading, or mark Argentina as red and add a note everywhere, which is difficult and potentially misleading. I can update the description though. —Quintucket (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:: (1) Puerto Rico belongs to the United States of America, it's clear that only countries (not provinces or states or overseas territories) should be in that map. (2) Argentina's ruling party is a member of the Foro, as it can be read in all Foro's Meeting Acts. (3) Wrong. There are 5 Foro de São Paulo politicians represented in Paraguay's Parliament nowadays. One of them is former president Lugo himself (now a senator). MarcosPassos (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

::: OK, first of all, you should have brought this discussion to the talk page and alerted me to that discussion here if (as is likely) I didn't respond. I based my map on the article, since it's a lot of information to check otherwise. You're right about Paraguay. In fact it's clear from the Foro's own [http://forodesaopaulo.org/?page_id=52 website] that the page hasn't been updated in awhile, and needs to be. While I can probably fix Paraguay soonish, I'll be busy until the middle of December and might not be able to fix the article for some time. Since you apparently have time on your hands, I invite you to update the article, especially since that will let me make sure the map is accurate when I do update it.

::: Secondly, the Foro's website doesn't list either the Front for Victory or the Justicialist Party as a member. If you have a reliable source that the FSP does have a member in (not merely supporting) Argentina's government, go ahead and add it, with references.

::: Finally, the legal status of Puerto Rico is irrelevant, the fact is that the FSP has allowed three Puerto Rican parties to join as members. —Quintucket (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:::: The legal status of Puerto Rico is very relevant because only COUNTRIES should be in that map, and Puerto Rico is not a country. The State I live in Brazil is ruled by a FSP party, but I won't and can't paint my state with a different color simply because my state is not a country, it belongs to Brazil. Martinique is part of FRANCE! Dominica is ruled by David Cameron! Yeah, your edits in the map were not constructive at all. MarcosPassos (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

::::: OK, let's get one thing clear: You have been nothing but rude, abrasive, and confrontational since you brought this to my attention, and though I've tried to be polite you have become increasingly nasty. If you want people to co-operate with you you need to at least make an effort to be civil, and so far I have seen no indication of this. Now Dominica is an independent country, and given that it's also an ALBA member, claims that it's a puppet of the UK make you sound, at best like you don't know what you're talking about. As for Puerto Rico, while it is a US territory, is separate from the United States. It is not a US state, however if it were it wouldn't really matter. If the FSP listed the Boricua parties under "Estados Unidos," I'd color the whole US unless other sources gave a good reason not to. Likewise with Martinique, which may be an integral part of France, but is listed under "Martinica." —Quintucket (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::: Well, I didn't really want "co-operation" with you when I uploaded that map. You were the one who spontaneously defaced my map and ruined it. Thanks! MarcosPassos (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::MarcosPassos, you might want to read WP:OWN. --Soman (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Could you please update the map of the states according to the polls posted on the main article? 97.71.50.252 (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

{{divbox|radius=5|ivory|You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014|

File:PEMWiki logo.png

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

}}

You're grounded for life. This will teach you a strong strict painful lesson. You will be wearing diapers for the rest of your life. And there will be no computer, no TV, no cartoon netwotk, no mcdonalds, and further more. The only things you can eat are Baby food, Raw Eggs, rotten swiss cheese, Hardtacks, thumbtacks,Cat pee, paper, metal and hammers. And you will be forced to watch baby and primetime shows like The Xfiles, Family Guy, south park, Barney, telletubbies, king of the hill, Dora the explorer, go diego go, baby einsteins, and lots more not made by Warner brothers or cartoon network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunablivion (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

15px Due to previous participation in a discussion on the subject, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox. CMD (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Information.svg A file that you uploaded or altered, :File:Peaches the Sun Conure.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The file :File:Peaches and Bongo (two pet birds).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One, I am not sure if this file is actually freely licensed (it was uploaded without a license, and was tagged as {{t|GFDL}} by someone else). Additionally, it is an orphaned personal photo and we are WP:NOTFILESTORAGE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)