User talk:Steve Quinn

To start a new discussion you may use this link: New discussion

Archives

early NPP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1516 17

Thanks for your great work on the superlens article!!! EdSaperia (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are expressing useful views regarding the Introduction to Quantum Mechanics page. It seems that every so often someone must start a fork or insist that the article be cut down to some kind of simplistic gee whiz content. I hope we can keep it at a level that will be used to more than the occasional curiosity seeker. Thanks for your help.P0M (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems this same conversation comes around every so often. Also, this article deserves my support. And you have done an excellent job with this article. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Barnstar of a thousand thanks
	LIke the title says! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve Quinn, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Steve Quinn! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve Quinn. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up being rather harsh on the AfD for J.G. Whitfield, and there was no reason for that. Apologies.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:. Actually, to me, you came across quite even handed. I think you presented your case well. I was going on information based on other unreliable music and entertainment sites that I have encountered. Thanks for saying the above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message. I wanted you to know that I was not attempting to out the editor, they self outed during the course of the requested arbitration case. The information they provided stated only that they have been employed by motor vehicle companies - Land Rover in the past and Ford at present (if I recall correctly). I simply took these observation and the more recent posts and conjectured a few things. As for the fish on a line remark, that stems from Plato's Republic (after a fashion), in which Socrates opines that justice, on some level is "...minding one's own business." In this sense then, I've taken an unjust action in filing for arbitration, and I think in an attempt to counter that point amidst two or three other posts at ANI and COIN our editor made some comments that they perhaps did not think the whole way through, and having accordingly been further pulled into noticeboard actions I think that they may have gotten desperate - as a fish out of water does - to get back into the water and return to their school. In fairness I can't blame anybody for that, I was recently on the receiving end of a rather heinous action by a tag team on here and I myself am still bitter over it, so I certainly understand where the post could come off as being harsh.

As for the Uranium pellets remark, I've been tracking a below-the-radar LTA account whose offline posts make proving connections difficult at times. In the case of the LTA editor, I have the pellets, the moderating material, and sense for when there is mischief inside that radioactive cesspool. In the case of carmaker1, I have his proof of employment which would suggest that he is here to push an agenda (we've had cases like this before, such as when the North Face tried boosting their product placement using Wikipedia) but unlike the ongoing LTA case I see no apparent malicious intent to edit, just a general absence of civility in the editing which echos an earlier case I filed on similar grounds for Joefromrandb.

Most importantly, though, is this: you have nothing to apologize for. I may be an admin, but Admins be for the contributors, meaning ultimately my goal is to help you and yours edit in peace. The drawback to being an admin is that you're part of the vanguard force, and when you spend everyday on the tip of the spear you do forget that the spear itself has uses other than simply being thrust at or into someone else. Being reminded of that does us all good, as it shows that you cared enough to inquire and that I need to do a better job of assuming good faith. For that I thank you.

If you would like further elaboration on anything posted above, or if something I said and/or did still doesn't sit right with you, let me know and I'd be happy to attempt to explain or to work with you to solve the issue.

Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: Thanks very much for your response. It is appreciated. Based on this response, I can tell that doing a good job for Wikipedia really matters to you. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He already had 3 warnings in edit warring, including a previous block, but he still insist in doing it his way. Me and the others find him extremely difficult to communicate with. He basically doesn't response until you change his edit. How are we suppose to cope with his behaviour ?

Hunan201p, knows very well he can always comment on the Genghis Khan talk page with me and editor 3family6, but he doesnt do it. The disputes ( between myself, Hunan201p and 3family6 ) was already long settled. that Genghis Khan having red hair isn't confirmed. Hunan201p clearly doesn't dispute on this concensus fact on the talk page anymore, but it seems he could care less about it and just continue his ways in one way or the other. Knowing he couldn't give a bias edit of red hair on Genghis Khan article because of your warnings, he insist to keep doing the same on other wikipedia pages, without anyone ever finding out. At this point he don't care what the facts are, he just intentionlly want people to be misleaded and read the info he wants people to see. He insist in including Genghis Khan and his sons having red hair.I told him about it but all he does is the same thing.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genghis_Khan#Physical_appearance ( Genghis Khan talk page )
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_hair&action=history (revision history of red hair)

Hunan201p avoided my reply in the blond talk page since 4th of May. He removed my edit, refuse to respond to me in blond talk page, making false claims in the edit summary. I find it very difficult like this. There had been a concensus agreement of 5-6 editors to remove Huangdi from blond page in the blond talk page and Fringe theory but he doesn't reply none of the questions properly and just cherrypick his answers.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (Fringe theories noticeboard)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blond&action=history (revision history on blond)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blond#Hunan201p_edits_in_the_blond_and_red_hair_section (talk page on blond and red hair, he made no attempt to discuss about this with me)

Admin Evergreen removed Hunan201p on The Mongolian warlord, Bodonchar Munkhag having blond hair and accusing Tobb72 of being malicious account in 17:32, 13 April 2020 but Hunan201p changed it back in 02:42, 14 April 2020. He was asked in the talk page by shinoshijak but avoided to answer, he simply chose not answer and he did the same to me..Queenplz (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Queenplz: I left a warning on their talk page. It went unheeded, so now I am going to ANI. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the links to that ANI [1], [2], [3]. The text is in the section entitled: "Disruptive editing in Blond and Red hair." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your report and I would suggest reviewing his edits on the other articles; e.g. Turkic peoples. It seems some of the reliable sources removed or misrepresented cause of WP:OWN and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Some stuff was added by socks of this sockmaster User:WorldCreaterFighter. But if they're reliable content, you may like to restore them. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wario-Man: Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, may I please restore your comment on my talk page. I have prepared a very full and I hope very careful response that I want to use, that expresses what I currently feel about the entire justification for WP. I know I could restore it without your ok, but I'm not comfortable doing that. I don't think what you said was either unreasonable, or unreasonably strong, tho I do not agree with some of it--I'm more inclusionist than you. (And if not, I do have a technique for answering questions that for one reason or another have been removed.) DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Thanks for saying you thought what I said was not unreasonable or unreasonably strong. That was my concern. Yes, feel free to restore my comment. And I am interested in what you have to say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i intended it as a summary. I've done a few others from time: me tIedo collect them, but on WP. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

I see your remove the qy you pinged me about. you prob. noticed 2 were by the founder. All organizations live by PR, even those of high quality and importance. Tho, interestingly, WP lives by the autonomously generated pr from its users; the WMF "communications" dept has very little to do with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had just started the article on Jimmy Allen (pastor) but have had other matters come up to where I can't complete things. I will get to it once things settle down around here. Quidam65 (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quidam65 no problem. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits to Authority having jurisdiction and call them a "hoax"? I was trying to start an article; was that not the correct procedure? 99.197.202.188 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

99.197.202.188 because it was a redirect changed into one line of text without reliably sourced references. I don't think there is coverage by sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. So, it looks like a hoax to me. You are welcome to change it back if you produce reliable sources for the subject. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a dictionary definition is not enough for an article. Please keep in mind Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! With regards to the Butler International AfD, I recommend you get access to The Wikipedia Library, which is indispensable for research if you don't have access to a lot of sources. You should easily qualify, and if you want newspapers.com in particular you can submit an application, as I did recently (well, a renewal application). Cheers! Ovinus (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus thanks very much. I didn't realize The Wikipedia Library had such capabilities. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I agree that the remark was a personal attack and off topic. It was also incorrect. I try to ignore personal attacks against me because supplying such comments with oxygen seems counter-productive. Thanks again - happy editing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[4] from the merge includes a student paper[5] that is obviously not an RS. Not sure how to fix it. Any ideas? Doug Weller talk 08:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to fix it at the moment. Do you think the student paper is an independent source? I was hoping the author would publish more in a bona fide academic journal. This is because she says in this paper: "Currently, I’m working to publish this research with my undergraduate faculty mentor," (page 26, Post & Lintel, Fall 2022). Of course it is only August 2023, and it may take a while to publish this particular research. I can recommend checking the page from which this content was merged to see if there is any RS there. I will take a look at it myself when I get the chance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I sent you a mail, hopefully you can look into it and let me know what you think,

Regards. LothofOrkney (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you’ve been writing a lot about criminal justice-related topics recently. I’m curious, have you come across any material that discusses motive? The reason I ask is because in the US, there’s this weird obsession with the notion of motive in the media, as if it has any bearing on the utility and effectiveness of the law, to the point where law enforcement and the news agencies (at least in the US) discuss and focus on motive while ignoring 90% of the most important topics related to crime. So, I’m curious if you’ve run into any material that explains this unusual behavior or if you’ve noticed it yourself. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: I haven't come across any material that discusses motive. I do notice that detecting motive makes for good drama on shows that are police procedurals. I guess motive is considered useful for solving a crime in fiction and probably useful for real-life police forces. That's all I know about that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My overall point, is that law enforcement and policing in the US are at all time lows. According to an article in NPR in 2022, the US is "among the worst at solving murders in the industrialized world", with the rate at solving murders below 50% in 2020 alone.[6][7] This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it confined to murders alone; according to the FBI, less than a third of rapes are cleared. Meanwhile, the US media focuses an enormous, disproportionate amount of news coverage about crime on discussions about "motive", which has almost no bearing on future cases, nor has it been shown to help investigatory abilities or bring closure to victims. It seems to me that discussion about motive is a major point of distraction, that deflects discussion away from the inability of law enforcement to do their job, and the failure of political and legal authorities to make laws and punishments that actually address the problem of crime. Knowing the motive of those who engage in crime changes almost nothing. Further, discussing motive at the beginning of criminal investigations is a fool's errand, since motive will often emerge much later, not at the start. I maintain that the entire process is either outdated or a failure of epic proportions. This is why I'm so curious as to why, in 2024, the discussion of "motive" is still front and center in news coverage about crime. Viriditas (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: That is an interesting question. Unfortunately we don't seem to have answers for the reasons for what the media does to garner attention. I know that I don't. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas I randomly looked at this talk page and saw your question. I have a paralegal degree and experience in law, but I am not an attorney and cannot provide legal advice. 90% of law is civil and that's what I know most about. However, as part of the degree, we did study criminal law. I don't know how much you know about law and criminal law.

With the above disclaimer, I believe motive can be particularly important, because it helps with establishing mens rea, which 'is' often an essential element in establishing guilt. Wikipedia's entry is Mens rea. I haven't read our entry, and I would tend to trust Cornell's site, since our legal articles are often lacking. If either of you do work on articles that have to do with the law itself (not the prosecution part), you can ping me, and I might be able to help. I've taken plenty of classes in Legal research and writing.

...to the point where law enforcement and the news agencies (at least in the US) discuss and focus on motive while ignoring 90% of the most important topics related to crime. What are the other 90% you are referring to?

And although I don't feel like the media obsesses on motives in crime--how often do they obsess on why someone was motivated to get a DUI, possess contraband, speed, drive recklessly, park illegally, and the countless other crimes that dominate the criminal court cases?--I do know that the media loves murder, murder mysteries, and similar true crime. There are countless shows like Dateline, NCIS, Bones, Criminal Minds, and a long history of countless movies and detective series, like Sherlock Homes, Agatha Christie, Adam-12, Rockford Files, Barnaby Jones, Perry Mason, and Colombo. I don't understand why so many people want to spend so much time watching those shows when murder is so rare compared to the other crimes I mentioned. Then again, I can't say a show dedicated to the prosecution of parking tickets would be a real winner.  :)

Incidentally, I can highly recommend this Japanese murder mystery (film): Castle of Sand where motive important. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made an unkind comment toward me at Talk:Consciousness of guilt (legal). While I'm glad you later thought better of it and retracted what you said, you did so in violation of WP:REFACTOR. If you cannot manage to restrain your comments, you should strike them and make clear in the edit summary what you're doing. Many on Wikipedia know that I have a long reputation for being brusque, harsh, and abrasive so I'm not throwing stones. In a discussion about consciousness of guilt, admitting guilt for bad acts is the least we can do. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: I apologize for this comment. I meant it to be humorous and to bring levity to the conversation. As I can see from your feedback it did not come across like that. I will just go ahead and fix this by refactoring. Also, as you noted above, we were in a discussion about consciousness of guilt on that talk page. Additionally, we are discussing my "bad act," and what I need to do to help rectify the situation. It seems ironic that this has occurred on that talk page. Again, I apologize and thanks for contacting me about this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is accepted and I thank you for it. We all make mistakes, me especially. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just making a note here to check this out. Contributed by Doug Weller at WP:FTN [8]. Here is the web page and book title:

"Alternative Egyptology: Critical essays on the relation between academic and alternative interpretations of ancient Egypt." Edited by B.J.L. van den Bercken. Released in 2024.

---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Draft:Shruti Reddy. Thank you.

I'm notifying you as an interested party, not as a suspect.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himani Savarkar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Steve Quinn as you're the one who merged the 1st leg, why you didn't merge the 2nd leg? Here's the discussion. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]