Jump to content

User talk:Daniel Quinlan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hephaestos (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 12 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived discussion: Archive1

Please use section headers and add comments to the bottom. Thanks! — Daniel Quinlan

Infinitely grotesque

Hello. Your insertion of the grotesquely incorrect phrase infinite keystrokes where infinitely many keystrokes was meant shows that you failed to understand what you called the "pedantic usage note". I've corrected it. Michael Hardy 00:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No comment necessary. Daniel Quinlan 00:09, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

header title chosen by Cyan

Place name wars

When I said yesterday other users are much more brute and insulting, this comment was not meant to target at you. I hope you did not understand it that way. -- Baldhur 08:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart

I consider your protecting of Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) in order to enforce your offensive POV title to be an abuse of sysop powers. ☮ Eclecticology 09:58, 2003 Dec 11 (UTC)

I protected it entirely according to the policy, I have not been involved in the debate nor did I make any choice as to the title, I merely protected the page where it happened to be when I became aware of the move war. And in the vote I proposed and set up, I even voted against the current title. I think you are overreacting. Daniel Quinlan 19:01, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Bonnie et al.

On whose authority did you delete Bonnie, Jayne Bryleigh, Bryleigh's Theorem, and Slope field, without first leaving them on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for five days? The deletion policy sets out what categories of articles may be speedily deleted, and as far as I can see none of those pages fit into any of the categories. The explanation in your deletion summaries ("nonsense from repeat vandal" and so on) doesn't really help. Vfd is the place to debate whether or not something is nonsense, unless it is pure gibberish (stuff like "uyggiuyg", which anyone can recognise as nonsense), in which case the deletion policy explicitly allows immediate deletion. If a page has the surface appearance of sensible text, then it should be listed on Vfd. One person's judgement should not override the consensus of the community. In these cases, it seems pretty clear that the consensus after five days will be to delete the pages, so why do you feel the need to bypass discussion by the Wikipedia community? The only motivation I can think of would be if you thought the community would end up disagreeing with you, but I don't think that is likely here. So why not just follow the policy? -- Oliver P. 21:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The pages exactly fit into the categories for speedy deletion under the deletion policy:

  • pure vandalism, see my documentation of these IP addresses on Vandalism in Progress
  • patent nonsense, read the definition which includes: Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make heads or tails of it.

Not one, but two valid reasons to speedily delete. In addition, the one person who originally expressed concerns that the Bonnie page might not be patent nonsense has withdrawn her concerns and has agreed that the page should be deleted. I'm not overriding the community at all and I'm not violating policy at all. You are violating policy by undeleting pages which are patent nonsense. This particular vandal (who may be Michael) has vandalized so many pages that it's not supportable to undelete these articles or even list them on Votes for deletion. It seems more like you're the person continually overriding the consensus of the community, especially in these cases. I will not reciprocate by laying disingenuous motivations at your doorstep, though. Daniel Quinlan 21:40, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've brought the matter of "vandalism" up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, so hopefully that will be clarified before too long. Please feel free to comment there if you want. Basically I don't think that the list of candidates for speedy deletion was intended to cover pages that appear, on the surface, to make sense. Such articles need discussion to ascertain whether or not they have some merit. And the articles we're talking about here certainly weren't patent nonsense. As they stood when you deleted them, they made perfect sense. And were actually quite funny. :) As for your final point, I wasn't accusing you of having bad motivations. Apologies if it seemed that I was. I meant that I could only think of one possible motivation, and then I dismissed it as being unlikely. So, even if I concede that the deletion policy can be interptered the way you interpret it, I am still left wondering... Given that there is some disagreement, what is so wrong with allowing the matter to be up for discussion for five days? What possible harm could it do? -- Oliver P. 23:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Unprotection question

Can we unprotect Elizabeth Smart (kidnap victim) so as to move it to Elizabeth Smart (1987-)? - Hephaestos 04:15, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, done. If I may be so bold, think this is one case where protection worked well. Otherwise, I suspect we'd have 5 more redirects and no consensus. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Redirects

I try to fix those every time I make a move; sometimes there are quite a few. I'm wondering if I got all of Prince's today. Usually though it's just not a big deal. - Hephaestos 04:27, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan&oldid=1938884"