User talk:Jason Quinn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I want to encourage your hypothesis[edit]

Hello sir, I 'lost' a good friend to schizophrenia last year and I want to mention to you that indeed their symptoms of paranoid delusions match exactly those of scientific cranks. Your notes in the talk page of the crank definition helped me a lot in my personal healing process.

I also came to this conclusion after documenting myself about my friend's delusions : free energy, anti-relativity, (more specifically Carla Rueckert, Eric Dollard and Dewey B. Larson) and of course, the symptoms of schizophrenia.

Good online definitions of 'cranks and crackpots' such as and really show that they analyzed in detail their behaviors, but I am always amazed that no one points to schizophrenia. Do physics and psychology specialists ever hangout together? I strongly feel that 'physics cranks' match perfectly with schizophrenia behavior and not some other general form of mental illness.

Again, many thanks for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you found the comment helpful. Do physics and psychology specialists ever hangout together? The answer is not very often. Occasionally socially but professionally their paths rarely cross. It seems to me that there's a social stigma about assuming crank mailings, even the most bizarre, are from schizophrenics. Most people just seem to be very uncomfortable with the subject so they avoid it. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My inline tags page[edit]

Hi Jason. Thanks for fixing that. It's appreciated. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Help! My Cite toolbar has gone![edit]

I have noticed you have been playing with the ref toolbar. My Cite button seems to have gone. I can't edit without it.. Please help! =(

Thanks, Staceydolxx (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First, which Reftoolbar are you using? See WP:Reftoolbar for pictures to decide. Next, lets try forcing your browser's cache to reload. This is often done by holding down the shift key as you click the reload button. Do that several times on a page you are editing. If that fixes the problem, all is good. If not, it may be some other problem. How "vanilla" is your account? I see you added a line to User:Staceydolxx/vector.js. Did that fix the problem? Could you describe the problem in more detail? Try removing the line from vector.js and refreshing your cache. Your issue most likely is related to the changes I made but the changes seem to work fine for me so I'm unsure what's going on right now. It is possible one your cache only partially updated at some point or something bizzare. It's also possible, I've just screwed things up and will need to revert. However, things are working perfectly for me using the new changes. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I've tested the new versions under my alt account and several browsers. They all work.... Jason Quinn (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


Barnstar Typo Team.png The Typo Team Barnstar
I was going to nominate you as the Editor of the Week, but they only accept non-admins. So, instead, I hereby give you this barnstar! You do a lot of work behind the scenes that keeps the Typo Team running, and I am shocked (Shocked, I tell you!) that no one's given you one of these already. Sophus Bie (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it! I see on your user page that you play nethack. Me too! No spoilers, terminal version. Been playing for over 15 years. Always play a chaotic Wizard with a cat. I haven't played much recently but the other week I did give it another go and had a 150,000 game, which is a typical "good game" for me. My best of all time is like 250,000'ish. Not very high but for playing without spoilers, I'm content with it. I was unstoppable in that game... until worst YASD ever. (I'd say what killed me but I don't know if you play spoilerless or not.) I've never beaten my class' quest although there were a few times I think I came really close. Thanks for the barnstar again. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad I could brighten your morning! (Or other applicable time of day...)
I play in a terminal as well, but playing without spoilers is impressive! I'm so spoiled they'd throw me out of the produce section. And yet, with all of those spoilers, and playing since I was eight years old, I've won a grand total of once... Funnily enough, it was with a chaotic Wizard, which is my usual character too, actually. My second best playthrough ended in YASD due to playing while sleepy. I don't want to spoil you, so I'll just say I typed 'y' when I should have typed 'n'. Tell me about your YASD; it's always fun to hear other people's stories! Sophus Bie (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Annie Oakley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What happened with the Edgar S. Cahn article?[edit]

I saw in my watchlist that the Edgar S. Cahn article was deleted per single-author request, which I assume was based on your manual blanking of the page. You spent considerable effort to establish notability and now you wish to delete the article? Why did you decided to remove it? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to ethical concerns, I no longer want to be associated with the article's creation. While I did my best to keep the informative and neutral in tone, it was ultimately being used for promotional purposes that I'm not comfortable with for a number of reasons I don't wish to air on any Wikpedia talk page.
I understand that this is an encyclopedia created for the dissemination of notable information, and that information ultimately belongs to Wikipedia users and contributors. But I can't in good conscience remain the primary author/contributor of the article. If another Wikipedian would like to start it back up, I'd be happy to give a copy of the article's text and markup (for images and references) to that person. In truth, there are many notable events from the 1980's through the present regarding time banking that should be added for the sake of completeness.Plasmid203 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
In my first message to you — because there was a potential conflict of interest — I wrote, "By carefully understanding the policies [of Wikipedia] and what is appropriate and what is not, it could save you (and others) time and frustration". That seems to have happened. Now your conflict of interest is preventing a full disclosure about your editing and a non-full disclosure is detrimental to any collaborative process. This is a text book instance why editing with a conflict of interest is generally a bad idea.
Your reply raises many more questions than it answers but, given no reason to think otherwise, that's fine. I would like to point out Wikipedia:Right to vanish and Wikipedia:Clean start. If you decide to keep editing, my personal advice is to start easy: maybe correcting spelling and grammar) here and there and slowly trying news things out. You should also read help like Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In particular, for instance, you should start new conversations at the bottom of a talk page and use indents. You'll find it much easier to participate in a large online community if you are familiar with the customs and norms. Best of luck, Jason Quinn (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, one could argue I'm the poster child for what can go wrong when one takes jumping into Wikipedia lightly. I don't anticipate contributing in the future. It requires more energy and attention than I'm able to give without mucking things up (example: forgetting about the basics of how to NOT mess up other people's talk page and the markup required to indicate you're replying to a comment because I haven't had time to edit anything in over a month.) I just don't have time for it as a hobby, and other Wikipedians shouldn't have to waste time correcting errors generated by a contributor who can't be bothered to read up on Wiki culture. It's better to do a few things well than many things with mediocrity. Don't be like me, kids! Plasmid203 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical Ecstacy[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you might add your two cents to this discussion yet again. I thought we had it settled but apparently User:Pigsonthewing is determined to get his way. Thanks. ChakaKongtalk 11:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ChakaKong. I've been away from the computer for a week and haven't been following Wikipedia. I too thought the discussion settled by WP:BURDEN, which is unambiguous and almost perfectly apropos. I've skimmed the recent activity related to the discussion and I am up-to-date. I will add a last comment when I get a chance. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Already done, but feel free to join in. ChakaKongtalk 16:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Jason Quinn

I am trying to reinvigorate WikiProject Years, and I thought you may be interested. Please respond to this message here, and post your name here if you are interested.

Thanks, Matty.007 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angram (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) 10:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

New RefToolbar[edit]

Hope you haven't abandoned this yet ;)

If you're still looking to work on this, I (after my semi-absence of about another week) will resume working on this whole thing (new user stuff) on the Deployment cluster version of the English Wikipedia. If you want to test anything without breaking it on the English Wikipedia, you can do it there. It's a different SUL cluster, so you'll need a new account. I'll assign any rights you need to upload/gadgetize/whatever this :)

Also, if you know javascript (at all), I'm also using the deployment version as a testing ground for a replacement for the Article Wizard. As such, I was looking into the GuidedTour extension as a possibility, but it requires javascript knowledge to incorporate and write. So, if you want to help with that, I'd greatly appreciate it :)

If you have any questions, you can reply here, my talkpage, ping me with Echo, or ping me on IRC as Charmlet. Thanks! ~Charmlet -talk- 02:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is about the tool you showed at the village pump, I downloaded it and checked it out finally. I want to encourage you to keep coding but honestly I'm not really into filling out forms. I'd rather have more tools to improve scraping that stuff immediately online. Have you checked into ProveIt, by the way? There might be a partnership opportunity there. II | (t - c) 05:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Great Gatsby[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Great Gatsby you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Disc Wheel -- Disc Wheel (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I finished reviewing the article and there are some easy fixes and its GA. Keep up the good work. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Great Gatsby[edit]

The article The Great Gatsby you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Great Gatsby for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Disc Wheel -- Disc Wheel (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Great Gatsby[edit]

The article The Great Gatsby you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:The Great Gatsby for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Disc Wheel -- Disc Wheel (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on a photo[edit]

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451 details[edit]

Hi Jason Quinn: there are two inconsistencies in the Fahrenheit 451 article which maybe you can help me figure out if you have a hard copy of the book. For the first, I'm trying to determine if the afterword states that the Faber / Faber-Castell relationship mentioned in the "Characters" section is a coincidence, or if it was intentional. For the second, the "Writing and Publication" section italicizes The Fireman once (as if it were a full novel) and places it in quotes in other places (as if it were a short story/novella). The sentence with the italics is referenced to an edition of the novel that I don't have. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Orange Suede Sofa. This is discussed in the last two paragraphs of the Afterward. Here is the exact quote:
A last discovery. I write all of my novels and stories, as you have seen, in a great surge of delightful passion. Only recently, glancing at the novel, I realized that Montag is named after a paper manufacturing company. And Faber, of course, is a maker of pencils! What a sly thing my subconscious was, to name them thus.
And not tell me!

As you see, Bradbury suggests it was a "subconscious" decision, which — while dubious — if true I suppose places it somewhere between a coincidence and intentional. Based on just a couple days passing thought, I'm somewhat cynical of this suggestion. If I had to guess the truth, I think the Afterward is really Bradbury "spilling the beans" on intentional symbolism that he was annoyed had gone unnoticed. (If any critics had noticed the naming symbolism prior to the authoring of the Afterward, it would strongly discourage this idea.) I'm ambivalent about whether the "Character" section should mention it. I can see it either way. I think it does deserve mention somewhere, but perhaps in a different section.
The first paragraph of the Afterward touches on your second question. It is:
I DIDN'T KNOW IT, BUT I WAS LITERALLY WRITING A dime novel. In the spring of 1950 it cost me nine dollars and eighty cents in dimes to write and finish the first draft of The Fire Man which later became Fahrenheit 451.

There are several things to notice about this. 1) It seems he wrote only the original story on those rented typewriters, not the whole book as I've now seen mentioned here and there. 2) The short story may have been titled "The Fire Man", that is, three words instead of two. I would like to see the original publication to see how the title is formatted there. I believe that "The Fire Man" (or "The Fireman", whichever it actually may be) is just a short story. The full novel is quite short so as it is, so if it's true that the original work was only half that long, I think it calling it a short story is appropriate and it should be typeset accordingly.
I re-read the book before starting to rewrite the plot section. It's a quick read and only took a couple days. Bradbury's style is quite inelegant at times (especially after coming from a Great Gatsby overdose) but the story he told is remarkably prescient, perhaps scarily so. In the article's talk archives I noted with some amusement that a reader asked "Where's the science fiction?" That question speaks volumes to Bradbury's foresight.
I'm intending on doing significant revamp to the rest of the article over the coming weeks. I don't particularly like the current structure and I'm disappointed by the lack of peer-reviewed articles used as references. I'm glad at least the plot outline is now of passable quality. I corrected a handful of inaccuracies. Hopefully I introduced none, or at least fewer than I corrected. The book has a tendency to introduce elements into the story which are only explained later and even then somewhat obliquely. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! I share your cynicism regarding Bradbury's comment and I don't think that the "Character" section should include a reference to the naming coincidence (you may have seen that I removed a similar coincidence from the Montag paragraph, because it was clear that it was not an intentional factor in creating the character's name). It could merit inclusion elsewhere, perhaps in the "Writing" section, but we'd have to be really sure that there's no OR creeping in. And yes, Bradbury's writing is definitely a shift from Fitzgerald's yet I had the honor of attending one of Bradbury's lectures and he was wonderfully ornery. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There is also the term "novella" for works in size between a short story and a novel. The book Shmoop Literature Guide: Fahrenheit 451 refers to "The Fireman" as a novella. Don't think Wikipedia has guidelines about the typography in that case. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
In the Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 audio guide interview clip, at about the 10:44 mark, there's a picture of the cover of the February 1951 Galaxy Science Fiction magazine. It's difficult to make out but it appears that the published title (at least on the cover) was written as "The Fireman" (that is, without the extra space). Jason Quinn (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:And?[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:And? has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bradbury in asbestos[edit]

Hello, and kudos for the extensive work you have been doing to improve the Fahrenheit 451 article.

I'm the editor that passed through it a while ago and corrected the error about the asbestos-bound edition. I used to own a copy. I paid $25 for it in 1965 and got it for the pleasure of having it, not for potential profit, but to make ends meet in 1988 I sold it to a dealer for $800. A 3200% return is not bad, except that equally clean examples fetch $20,000 now. Ouch.

I see that you found a cit which serves to verify the asbestos, but still need one for the "200 signed and numbered copies" part. There is no shortage of booksellers' websites where that may be confirmed, but unfortunately they are too commercial to be acceptable as WP cits. However, some include photos of the limitation page, totaling three or four different examples at least, and the images turn up in a suitable Google image search. I wonder if that might constitute sufficient verifiability to simply cite the edition itself, with no link, thus:

The limitation page of the asbestos-bound edition states that "This edition of FAHRENHEIT 451 has been limited to 200 copies. It is specially bound in JOHNS-MANVILLE QUINTERRA [no comma sic] an asbestos material with exceptional resistance to pyrolysis. Each copy numbered and signed by the author."

Somewhere, I have a xerox I made of the page in my own copy before kissing it goodbye, but there is not much likelihood of unearthing it for scanning and uploading to WP anytime in the foreseeable future. AVarchaeologist (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:AVarchaeologist I added a web page cite with this information. According to the same web page, this was the hardbound which was technically published 6 weeks after the paper edition. Sorry for the slow reply. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update[edit]

Hey Jason Quinn. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Hey, congrats on your Million Award for Great Gatsby! High school juniors across America owe you a hearty thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fahrenheit 451[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fahrenheit 451 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Cirt. Thank you so much for beginning this review. I look forward to your suggestions for improvement and working with you to bring this article up to GA standards! Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds great, will keep you posted, — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Cirt. What the current status of things? Jason Quinn (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the poke, will get to the review quite shortly. — Cirt (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I was working on Distributed Common Ground System along with other computer network articles, and ran across DCGS-A which you created two years back. It appears to refer to the Army part of the same project, but acronymized instead of spelled out. Since then the acronym article has had several rounds of single-purpose accounts add various points of view, only to result in edit wars. Finally it was mostly verbatim quotes of promotional jargon. I did a couple edits but think the best idea is to just merge into the article with title spelled out, and attempt to have a neutral tone with actual information in it paraphrased from citations into normal (as far as I can!) English. It looks like you are an experienced editor so would appreciate you opinion. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


I would like to talk to an admin privat. would you pls contact me and delet this massage after. thank you

paradiesaaaa(at) (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Your proposal with regard to {{Family tree}} was excellent. Thank you for following it through with a talk page discussion and the note on the template itself. The "brilliance" was as much in the execution as the idea. Keep up the great work! Stalwart111 04:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch, Stalwart. Always good to get a barnstar! :-) Jason Quinn (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge


You can delete it if you want WhisperToMe (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Great Gatsby talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jason Quinn. You have new messages at Roseclearfield's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talk:Fahrenheit 451/GA1[edit]

GA on Hold, I left some comments there, shouldn't be too hard to address, good luck, — Cirt (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fahrenheit 451[edit]

The article Fahrenheit 451 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Fahrenheit 451 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Any updates yet at Talk:Fahrenheit 451/GA1? — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi you left this message[edit]

Hi you left this message on my talk page "if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page" however it says "If I left you a message on your talk page, reply there." at the top of your talk page. And its kind of confusing. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingFudge (talkcontribs) 22:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Woodruffe vs Woodroffe[edit]

Hi Jason - please forgive me as I don't really know how to talk back and forth here on Wikipedia. I just got your reply now. I am positive Jezz Woodroffe's last name is indeed WOODROFFE. It is commonly misspelled 'Woodruffe'. Jezz sent me an autograph in 2003 and he clearly printed and signed his name as 'Woodroffe'.

P.S. if you are reading articles or sources from 'Joe Siegler's Black Sabbath page', while that page is indeed awesome, it is full of little errors. One of those errors being how he misspells Jezz Woodroffe's name. Also, many times band member's names are 'misspelled' in the liner notes, some accidentally - others because of more sinister reasons. See the Ozzman Cometh album for a great example of that debacle.

Jezz Woodroffe was also on board and touring with Sabbath during their Sabotage tour, though he did not perform on the album.

To compromise, perhaps you can list it as Gerald Woodroffe - keyboards (misspelled Woodruffe in liner notes)

P.S. How did you (or how does one) become "in charge" of editing or patrolling a certain Wikipedia page?

Thanks -- JohnnyangelNIU JohnnyangelNIU (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JohnnyangelNIU. I have undone the change you made to Technical Ecstasy. My CD liner notes use the spelling "Gerald Woodruffe". A brief web search suggests that that spelling of his name is quite common. In the article I think it makes sense to stick to the credited spelling. Perhaps Gerald has gone by both spellings in his career. In that case, if ever an article is made for him, both spellings can always wikilink to the correct person. Do you have a particular source that suggested Gerald was going by "Woodroffe" around the time of the Tech Ec album? What prompted your change? Are you sure your source wasn't in error? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

RefToolbar active maintainers[edit]

Hi. I have noticed your plea for additional maintainers of the RefToolbar. I am highly motivated to provide flexibility to the RefToolbar so that it can produce citations that are compatible with either the Wikipedia Citation Bot or Wikipedia template filling (the later which I now have inherited and am currently maintaining, see discussion). Right now we have the following a mixture of author citation formats supported:

  • RefToolbar – first, last, coauthor – coauthor has apparently been deprecated
  • Wikipedia Citation Bot – first1, last1, first2, last2, ...
  • Wikipedia template filling – single author parameter with Vancouver system author style

I realize that the single author parameter is not popular with proponents of COinS metadata, but the "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." is not popular with many editors in the medical and scientific fields because of parameter bloat. Both citation styles are widely used and per WP:CITEVAR, both should therefore be supported.

I don't have much experience with javascript, but I have done significant scripting with perl and python. I would like to see if I can provide programming support to add flexibility to the RefToolbar as described above. I would therefore appreciate if you could provide me some pointers on how to get started (e.g, where the code base is located and how it is maintained). Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

After digging around a bit more, it appears the source is kept here: MediaWiki:RefToolbar.js and edit requests can be made through the talk page. Is that correct? Boghog (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
One immediate problem I see is that the input pane is not well suited to handle "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters but it would be no problem to include a single author parameter. One could include a "add additional authors" button. However this could quickly get out of hand if one has a long author list. Another option is just include the author list in a single field as it would be rendered in the final formatted citation in the input panel, but include the "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters tags when inserting the citation into the edit window. In addition I would also like to include an option in the toolbar to use a single author parameter instead of the "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters with the authors formatted in Vancouver style. Does this approach sound reasonable? Have proposals for how to handle the author parameters been discussed elsewhere? Boghog (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Levy flight: translation in Dutch[edit]

Hello Jason, today I have translated the article on Levy flight in Dutch. A colleague has nominated this article for deletion, One of his arguments is the year that the book of Mandelbrot has appeared. In this update you have changed the year of publication from 1982 to 1983. see here. The footnotes are however still referring to 1982. Amazon is also referring to 1982 for this ISBN numbers. I know that your edit is nearly a year old, but if you can check, please do. Best regards, (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC) (JRB)

Hi, This Mandelbrot reference originally had an incorrect ISBN. I fixed it. In the process of fixing it, I found a scanned copy of the book on Google Books that gives 1983 as a copyright. Other sources on World Cat also give 1983. So basically there's conflicting information about the year... 1982 vs 1983. I've "seen" the book through Google Books that has 1983, so that's why I chose it. I didn't notice the other references using 1982. Probably both years can be considered to be correct but maybe 1983 was only for later printings so 1982 is better. I shall change it back to 1982. As for the person arguing that the article should be deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia because of a slight inconsistency in a (easily verified) reference, assuming the norms on that wiki are similar to those on the English Wikipedia, they have no idea what they are doing. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Jason, thank you for your prompt reaction. The norms on the Dutch Wikipedia concerning citation are not more, but less strict then on the English wikipedia so that's not the reason for this nomination, the background issue is probably more if one is allowed to translate an article from an other wikipedia (mostly the English, German or French wikipedia) without having checked all citations. In this case I have not checked if the four citations from Mandelbrot 1982 are correct, since Amazon didn't allow me to view chapter 10. Now that you mention that they are visible on Google Books, I will try to verify the four notes there. Best regards (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC) (JRB)

Infobox book[edit]

Hi, just a heads up to say there's another discussion at Template talk:Infobox book about the |published= parameter, which you objected to before. Would be good to hear your opinion on how you think it should handle this information, to come up with a solution that everyone's happy with! ‑‑xensyriaT 13:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the outline and proposals, and congratulations! :) ‑‑xensyriaT 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
adding to the congratulations: enjoy the new life! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. It's definitely a big new experience. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fahrenheit 451[edit]

The article Fahrenheit 451 you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Fahrenheit 451 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

TYPO: shortcut prefix[edit]

Hi Jason, I am wondering if you would mind if we gave TYPO:DONTFIX a new shortcut, like WP:DONTFIX, as 'TYPO' isnt a commonly accepted shortcut prefix. If you do wish to keep the 'TYPO' shortcut prefix, you'll probably want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:John Vandenberg. I have no attachment to "TYPO:DONTFIX" and would be perfectly fine if it were changed to "WP:DONTFIX" or even something else. There's only 3 pages that use "TYPO:DONTFIX" (all made by me) and I have no objections to any changes. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Great. I have moved the shortcut to WP:DONTFIX, and updated the pages that used the old shortcut. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

animal farm[edit]

since you took away the protection from Animal Farm do you know a stream of pointless vandal edits has occurred pretty regularly? do you go back to look at edit histories and make decisions afresh ever?Sayerslle (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sayerslle. If you rephrase your comments using a civil, polite tone, I would be glad to answer you. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jason Quinn, I do not like articles being protected too much myself, normally, but I've noticed on 'animal farm' that the vandalism is regular and pointless and it just seems, what's the good of allowing all these useless vandal edits endlessly. it isn't a big deal I accept that. and sorry if it came across uncivil - transference of bitter feelings from Syrian civil war related articles probably. no excuse but 'context' of short tempered tone. Sayerslle (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the sentiment that when vandal edits are too high it places too much burden on page watchers. And, yes, I do go back and check pages and I am one of the very few editors who actually does this in a fairly rigorous way (see Talk:The_Great_Gatsby#Analysis_of_IP_edits, for example) so your original comment is rather ironic. I haven't been following Animal Farm too closely lately though so I'm glad you reminded me of it. Now would be a very good time to re-examine it's page protection status. If you would like to do a IP edit analysis or presented a evidence-based argument on the article's talk page suggests the vandalism rate is too high and the page needs permanent protection (something that suggests X% of the IP edits in the last Y months are undoubtedly vandalism would be best type of statistic), I could even re-protect the page. Or, now that you've reminded me of it, you could wait until I get around to doing it myself. In general, it's good to keep as much discussion about articles on the talk pages of those articles, so let's take any further discussion there so all can follow. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for your determined improvement of the project as a Wiki-Gome and copy-editor, without ownership of articles, for unquestionably improvements, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 May 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 384th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Has it been a year already? I just noticed I never put the symbol on the my talk. I think I will do that! Thanks for the reminder, Jason Quinn (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Number/alias issue[edit]


It seems like consensus has finally been reached on the number/issue issue. The consensus is that the bot should leave the 'number' parameter alone, and so I have modified the bot's code accordingly. Would you mind reviewing the discussion and, if you are satisfied, lifting the block of User:Citation bot 1?


Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Animal Farm[edit]

The vandalism persists. Yopienso (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Determinant mathematics[edit]

Hi Jason, I have no objection to your move of that redirect, but I think it's worth noting that the reason there were no parentheses in the original title is that Wikipedia's software didn't support them in titles at the time. Graham87 05:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the tip, Graham. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "ironic" and "repeatedly"[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jason Quinn. You have new messages at JamesLucas's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chile population figures[edit]

Hello, and thanks for your concern. The initial 2012 figures were from a pre-draft of the Chilean Census. The new results are the finalized versions. You can find the totals here:

Thricecube 03:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello Jason,

Yes, that is my collection, although it hasn't really been active since I was a kid. Back in the day, I would sort through jars and jars of pennies to find the ones I was missing.

I believe the ones with JFK engraved on them were from conspiracy theorists who were trying to link the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. As a kid I just thought they looked cool, so I would put them in when I found them.

I'm glad you enjoy the collection.

Thank you for the tip about linking the commons page to my bio.


(Monocletophat123 (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

You're welcome. See you around. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Palestine (historic region) topics[edit]

Template:Palestine (historic region) topics has been nominated for merging with Template:Palestine topics. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 15:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Requesting you to participate on the kochadaiiyaan page where a few editors are not allowing unbiased edits and presenting biased point of view by saying that the film is made in one language only while it is being made in multiple languages. please see my edits which are backed with sources. Marchoctober (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as Ri Sol-ju. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Cite book" redirect[edit]

In 2012 you participated in a discussion about various "cite x" template redirects (e.g. "Cite journal", "Cite book", etc) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Cite journal. The redirect "Cite book" was nominated for deletion yesterday (31 August 2014) and your input into the discussion would be welcome at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Cite book. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ought should and must[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 36#Rephrase "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" subheading

I have reverted your edit to Wikipedia:Attribution for several reasons.

The first is it is a dead proposal, so there is no point in updating it. It only has a funny non standard top-box on it because SlimVirgin will not let us bury it. The top-box at the top is a compromise as the contents this page was one of the great trench wars of Wikipedia and all the parties to the conflict were exhausted. So we have an armistice but not a peace treaty.

The second reason is more relevant. A couple of years ago there was a serious spat over the Men's rights article. It came down to whether when requesting a page move one has to use WP:RM, or if one can use other request mechanisms. It turned on the word "should". "Should" does not mean the same thing in the same context in different dialects of English. Some understand that one "ought to" do something (but it is optional) the other view is that it is a imperative "one must" do something, and other think it means something between. It is like the similar debate over whether "can" and "may" mean the same thing.

So the wording that you replaced was Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, is an imperative. "Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately" is only an imperative if one understands that "should" means "must" if one understands "should" to mean "ought to" then "Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced ought to be removed immediately" it is no longer an imperative but optional.

A minor aside: I think you really ought not [sic] to use an an archived discussion over six months old to explain an edit as such old archived sections can not have retorts added to them. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@PBS:. Hi. I'm about to go on a vacation so I can only do a quick follow-up now and maybe discuss it more when I get back. You raise a good point about "should" vs "ought" and other similar words. We should/ought discuss that. As for whether or not the proposal is "dead", if there's an "armistice" in the war, I think that proves it is not "fully dead" and is "partly alive". Therefore keeping the text polished is not a bad idea. Until there's some banner that says "This material is obsolete" or something to that effect, I don't seem the harm, and only benefit, by keeping it worded as best we can. As for the "six month" old discussion, I disagree in this case. That discussion is now the official wording of WP:BLP. In fact, the only reason I changed this page was people it was the last remaining instance of the old wording. In light of that fact, I think it still behooves us to use the new wording. I suggest the following course of action: for now we change Wikipedia:Attribution to the new wording for the sake of consistency throughout Wikipedia and because the new wording solved the problem of ambiguity discussed in the old discussion. Then, we start a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons to specifically address the problem of "imperativeness" that you raise. I won't be able to join the discussion until I get back however. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is the "official" wording of BLP then it does not matter what is written in WP:ATTRIBUTION as it is not policy. The old wording does not contracict policy so it does not need changing. The old wording is far less confusing than adding "should" to it. Your proposal (in the archive) was to change the word ordering to "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" from "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" -- personally I do not think it makes a jot of difference (so on that I am disinterested) -- but introducing the word "should" makes a fundamental difference so I am interested. In your dialect does should in this context mean "must" or "ought to", because I would make a distinction and assume that it meant "ought to" which is not an imperative ("child you ought to eat that pizza slice with your knife and fork" is not the same as "child [you must] eat that pizza slice with your knife and fork"). As it is of interest to you, I will find the link to the very long conversation and put it [here] -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC Annual Meeting and more![edit]

Our Archives.jpg

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

I am excited to announce the upcoming Wikimedia DC Annual Meeting at the National Archives! We'll have free lunch, an introduction by Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, and a discussion featuring Ed Summers, the creator of CongressEdits. Join your fellow DC-area Wikipedians on Saturday, October 18 from 12 to 4:30 PM. RSVP today!

Also coming up we have the Human Origins edit-a-thon on October 17 and the WikiSalon on October 22. Hope to see you at our upcoming events!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 08:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blue jay may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Reflist|35em|refs=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Madagascan pochard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous "Hydragyrum's" Snarks and Edits[edit]

I'm pretty new at Wikipedia, respect the thing greatly, and hope to contribute once I learn the system.

I have made a few comments in Talk sections here and there, and made my first actual text edit today (adding three DLJs to the David Lloyd-Jones disambiguation page.)

While looking around I found that a "Quicksilver," who also calls himself "Hydragyrum" had made an unpleasant, and worse, factually incorrect, remark in reply to something I had said, in an article about a guy named Rath, a notorious con man, phoney vitamin quack, and big-league exploiter of the gullible.

A couple of clicks brought me to you, where I found that he had given you the same treatment: a silly, incorrect, and unpleasantly snooty disparagement of something perfectly sensible you had done.

FWIW, I'm a former professional editor, and was for 18 years married to the excellent Susie Schmidt, one of the world's premier editors and teachers of editors. (I sometimes make light posts to the net under the pseudonym "Granny Grammar, Prune-Faced Grammarian," and award flying prunes to fools, plums on a salver to the witty and cunning. I'm moderately good at what I do.

In the case of you vs. Quicksilver, it's straight up. Even without considering his very unpleasant tone, it's a simple case of you're right, he's wrong. He may have done reasonable work elsewhere, but that is not a redemption for his stupid remarks about you, your judicious punctuation, and last of all, your defense of your punctuation, which apparently was beyond Quicksilver's comprehension.

Best wishes,


David Lloyd-Jones, david.lloydjones.391 on Facebook.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)