QuintBy

Please visit talk page on the stupid lipstick issue

Hi there, please visit the discussion page and read through to register your opinion there. Though I agree with it, I doubt your edit as it presently reads will stand, so be prepared.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Troikoalogo (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a campaigning zone. Please review our policies on neutrality. "An incredulous Obama vehemently denied" is not the language of dispassionate neutrality. Oh, and please don't sign articles.--Troikoalogo (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Person of color. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Irn (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC) QuintBy (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Irn here warns me that I need to reach consensus in order to avoid the disruption which an edit war presents to Wikipedia. Inexplicably, user:Irn, a rollbacker, is the only one whom I am now in a war with since user:irn is the editor who is on the other end of this alleged war. Most regretful to see even wikipower wikicorrupts. QuintBy (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hi QuintBy, As per your request for rolback, I had a look at your account with a view to granting rollback. You have only made 61 edits since 2007 so unfortunately there really isn't much to review. The permissions page for granting rollback states that: "Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right." You do not seem to be engaged in vandalism fighting, so I am unable to grant it on that basis. I am also concerned by your edits to both the "Goucher College" and "Person of color" articles where you seem to demonstrate an inability to distinguish between and good faith and bad faith edits. I have pretty low standards for granting rollback but unfortunately I really don't see a basis for granting it at this time. If you want to ask me again in future, I would be happy to take another look. Regards, Sarah 23:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't agree with rollback anyway. It encourages idleness. If I were deprived of rollback rights, I would not complain at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ICU Delirium

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ICU Delirium requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• The title should have had a small d. Feel free to expand on this subject in the delirium article. Something that affects up to 80% of ICU patients is worth a mention here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not called Ulcerative colitis

The essence of ICU Delirium vs. delirium is that it is a cognizable medical condition. Ulcerative Colitis is not written with a lower case c heading the second word so why would ICU Delirium be. There is an antiquated term, ICU psychosis, that quite properly carried a lower case p because at the time it was in use it was wrongly considered to be an essesntially harmless artifact of the critical care experience. And since when does a page title carry a noun with first-letter lower-case, anyway. A Curmudgeon syndrome (lower case on syndrome, apparently) is becoming an increasing obvious and unpleasant side effect as both Wikipedia and its more "senior" administrators continue to age. Would you know anything about that, Rhaworth? QuintBy (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? The correct title for ulcerative colitis is ulcerative colitis with a small u and a small c - and that is where the article resides. (If we were starting Wikipedia again, I would press very hard for the first letter of titles to be case sensitive - as in Wiktionary.) Are you seriously suggesting that ICU psychosis is OK with a small p but for some strange reason ICU Delirium must have a capital D - weird. "Since when …" - since the very start of Wikipedia. Do you actually read WIkipedia? There are millions of articles with nouns in their titles with lower case letters. Given my attitude, it is totally ridiculous for you to accuse me of suffering from Curmudgeon syndrome - the correct name is curmudgeon syndrome - small s and small c. Did you actually read my message above? I acknowledged that the topic is worth covering in Wikipedia but suggested that you do so within the delirium article. You obviously have not noticed that I created redirects on ICU delirium and ICU psychosis. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hasty deletion, etc

I don't understand what you're complaining about on my talk page. Could you be more concise? Also, you seem to think that I'm an admin and I am not. Dismas|^(talk) 03:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But I did give an explanation. Both in my edit summary and in response to the question on the Help Desk. Anyone can answer or respond to questions on the Help Desk. It's not solely for admins. Dismas|^(talk) 13:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see your issue with this. The comment didn't help the encyclopedia at all and was borderline racist at least. I see now that the page has been deleted entirely. Did you want the comment back? Do you feel that it added something to the encyclopedia by having it present? It doesn't matter whether someone is going to go searching for that image or not. Racist remarks have no place here.

And as far as "getting the drop" on you with using various terms, that was not my intent. I pointed out that I am not an admin in what I felt was a polite manner. And I use terms for various things because to not do so may come off as sounding condescending. For example, if I find myself in a conversation with another adult, I'm going to use my normal vocabulary. If they don't understand a word, they can ask what I mean by "such and such". If I instead talk to them as if they are children and use very simple words, they would likely be offended and I'd be going to extra effort to come down to a level that I need not go to. So if I, or any other editor, uses terms or shorthand that you're not familiar with, ask. Dismas|^(talk) 04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about User:Quintby

I don't know if you remember me, but I interacted with you when you were editing with the account User:Quintby (lowercase B) a while ago, and have just noticed you're editing with this account now. Since you don't seem to be using the two accounts at the same time, and since they're named so similarly, I do not think you're doing anything intentionally wrong using this slightly-differently-named account.

May I email you, or would that be unwelcome? Our previous interaction was not pleasant, and I'm not looking to re-open old wounds. I'll not bother you further if you don't want me to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

QuintBy,

Regarding your comments here, I'll try to explain better:

• You have alternated between two different accounts (although I suspect you aren't aware of it, because it's likely just a typo): Special:Contributions/QuintBy and Special:Contributions/Quintby.
• You have two talk pages: User talk:QuintBy and User talk:Quintby. It seems almost everyone posts messages to you based on the account you're using at the time; i.e. if you're logged in as QuintBy, people post to here; if you're logged in as Quintby, they post to User talk:Quintby. I doubt people realize there is another talk page.
• The existence of a user page at User:QuintBy but not User:Quintby doesn't mean much, because accounts can exist without user pages. it just means when you decided to create a user page, you were logged in as QuintBy at the time.
• I imagine having two talk pages could be confusing. From what I understand, it is impossible to merge accounts, but it might be easier if you choose one of these accounts, and the other was closed and pointed to the chosen account. If you want to pick one, I can help with that, but I'm not insisting.
• You were puzzled how I was going to email you; I could use Special:EmailUser/QuintBy; you evidently set up this account with an email address. The email was going to be some unsolicited advice on editing here with fewer conflicts, but I've had second thoughts about sticking my nose into your business. Of course, if you actually want the email, I can write it.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

masculism

regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculism&oldid=516865928 "(Reverted to revision 516198770 by QuintBy: An attempt to politicize a movement by men by declaring it to be against women simply because it is FOR men's rights. (TW))"

please remember WP:AGF, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Paintedxbird (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

images of muhammad

Ciao - hey, wtf is up w/ the censorship of images of muhammad into that retarded calligraphy? Why didn't you continue to fight against those politically correct douchebags and compel them to revisit what was 3 years ago - and still is - a terrible decision? I know at least 2-3 editors who would vigorously support an unceasing battle against such political correctness and vile censorship if you were to take the lead! And I myself would applaud the use of one of the Danish cartoons as the main muhammad picture (assuming proper CC-license was obtained, of course)! joepa^T 17:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misandry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Farrell (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) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification of MRM sanctions

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: The article is under WP:1RR restriction. Your two edits today (change of sourced content without consensus and the subsequent revert) could be construed as a violation of the restriction. Please participate in the discussion on the article talk page and be more careful with editing the article in the future. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourced material.

Hi QuintBy! I just undid one of your edits of Posttraumatic stress disorder because you exchanged sourced text by your own thinking, leaving the source in place, which created the illusion that what you wrote was supported by the source. This is a serious mistake, because it creates a false illusion. Please, if you change sourced text, replace the source with one that supports what you write. Thank you. Lova Falk talk 19:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Lova Falk, you make it difficult to understand which edit you are referring to - I made 2. In any event, there was no error, no "illusion" and certainly no serious error that you reference in PTSD. What I inserted is asserted in the very same reference, as I noted in my comment. You can check (and should have) before you made what I regard as an unduly inflammatory editing note. As for the part of the passage I omitted, once again, the statement left behind was still supported by the reference. The statement "more likely to experience more high impact trauma" is incomprehensible, but I'd like to hear what YOU think it means before I revert.QuintBy (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

QuintBy, I answered you on my talk page. Lova Falk talk 08:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hair loss, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DHT (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) 09:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cunt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Louie and FX. 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) 09:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Berklee College of Music alumni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Greene. 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) 09:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please explain

your recent edit at Dead white men and its reason. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Imagine, if you will, all the statues of real people created in the US from the end of the US Civil War until Scudder’s death in 1941. How many of them are of dead white men? Or, put another way, how many are of living people (very rare), how many are of women (almost as rare) and how many are of black, native, or Asian dead men? More in that latter category but still probably not 5% of the total statues produced. I’d say her statement is very much to the point, but since I am reluctant to undo the edits of other committed editors, I am thinking of moving it to the talk page and let others decide. I was also hoping that you wold address your statement that “This effort to make weight is not just POV it is both racist and sexist.” As far as POV goes, what other group do you think Scudder was referring to if not to dead white men? To help, her quote was:

” "I won't add to this obsession of male egotism that is ruining every city in the U.S. with rows of hideous statues of men-men-men- each one uglier than the other-standing, sitting, riding horseback-everyone of them pompously convinced that he is decorating the landscape." “

Carptrash (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, QuintBy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, QuintBy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, QuintBy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)