User talk:Quintucket

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

--Goobergunch 23:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Western Mass

Hi Quintucket,

Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry if I'm stepping on your toes a little with Western Massachusetts. I think it's a great start and I just wanted to do a little cleanup on it since I too live in this area. Enjoy! Rhobite 01:12, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not quite clear on what you did aside from fixing "chidens" and "asbolitionists" and getting the sightseeing list to work right, but I certainly don't see anything that I should be mad about.

Where do you live by the way? I live in Deerfield.

I didn't edit anything major, just some spelling fixes and clarified a couple parts. I live in Amherst. Rhobite 02:23, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what it looked like. Heh, I go to high school in Amherst. I wonder if I've ever bumped into you before when I've gone downtown. Meh.

--Quintucket 02:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Origin of your name

Check out Wikipedia articles for various numerical prefixes, including Greek numerical prefixes and Latin numerical prefixes. Is your name realted in any way to quinque-?? 66.245.15.73 02:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really much derivation here

The Quintucket or Quinitucket (I'm not certain which) was the original name of the Connecticut River. The French explorers happened along, and couldn't pronounce it, so they labeled it "Connecticut" instead. Since I live along the Connecticut River, I decided to start using "Quintucket" as a user name. Since I'm not sure if the "i", a sound that is barely pronounced I'm not sure if it's written or not, so I always write it without it.

--Quintucket 02:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, it turns out that it's "Quinnetucket." --Quintucket 01:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just as a note, the Ojibwe word for "being a long-stream" is ginootigweyaad, and the river is called Ginootigweyaad-ziibi. I used to live along the Connecticut River years ago... in central Connecticut. The oral history says that the Anishinaabe were from the east coast. So, I was quite amazed exactly how similar Ojibwe is/was to the languages spoken by the tribes located New England. You're right about the lack or resources to link for Abenaki language. One place, though, might be Freelang. Good luck! CJLippert 23:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal-stub

I think I've managed to straighten out your {{animal-stub}} so that it does what you presumably intended it to. Have a look at Category:Animal stubs and Template:Animal-stub to see how it works. --Paul A 02:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. I was a bit confused as to why it did it when none of the other stub categories did. --Quintucket 20:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem

Glad you're not too offended by my copyediting. Could I ask one favor of you? You've been adding good content but there's a large number of spelling errors. There are good spellchecker add-ons for most popular browsers, such as ieSpell and Spellbound for Firefox. Would you mind spellchecking your submissions? It's a pretty quick and painless process. Thanks. Rhobite 21:14, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Firefox has a spell-checker? I don't see it under Tools. I suppose that I can just copy & past into Word though, if need be, I'd only avoided it because I've occasionally had problems with auto-correct and not noticed. Quintucket 21:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firefox has a spellchecker extension called Spellbound, based on the Thunderbird spellchecker. You have to install it from that site. The interface can be a little annoying but it's pretty simple to use. Give it a try if you want. Rhobite 22:09, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks Rhobite. Quintucket 22:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Woah, I've been gone for three years?

Gee, really doesn't seem like it's that long.

Sorry I've been sorta AWOL.

Meheh.

Libya

Sorry for just reverting your edit like that, but capital cities are typically treated as common knowledge and don't require citations. Didn't mean anything by it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a little snippy. My internet connection was unusually bad at that point, which put me in a bad mood. I felt that the capital city needed citation in this case because it definitely isn't common knowledge. It wasn't even very well publicized. I hadn't heard about it, and couldn't find the information on Google. As far as I can tell that BBC article is the only source on the matter in English, and it was mentioned offhandedly even there. --Quintucket (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah on reflection I think you're right about that. In any case, it's all settled now. Thanks for improving the article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Princes' Islands#Eminönü ferry

Hello, Quintucket. You have new messages at Talk:Princes' Islands#Eminönü ferry?.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CeeGee (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:English-as-Official-Language.png

Your way of changing maps related to the English language shows that your aim is to misinform people about this very matter. For instance, why else would you have - without any valuable proof - changed Ethiopia and Eritrea and parts of Somalia and just indicated the first one of them? Hoped the rest wouldn't even be noticed? Let alone those multiple giant spots which noone really will be able to verify... Speaking any Turkish yet, at least?? Hoşça kal 186.212.224.180 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have to thank you for taking the time to bring this to my discussion page. I have been over this several times in several locations, and it always tends to crop up again where I least expect it, often without discussion. It's actually not one of my main priorities, though for awhile I've largely edited articles as I read them. I also want to thank you for bringing attention to another point, which is that my edit summary got cut off, and I will fix that in the talk page momentarily.

Down to the main point: both the CIA World Factbook[1][2], and Ethnologue [3][4] claim it as such for both countries. I admit that I'm baffled myself, but I'm editing things to fit with the sources I have, while hoping someone can shed light on the matter. If someone can explain either 1. how English came to be official in these countries or 2. why two sources that Wikipedia heavily relies on for language information got it wrong, it would put the issue to rest.

As for Somaliland, the English Wikipedia tries to maintain a position of political neutrality, and Somaliland's de facto status as an independent country means that it merits recognition. The striping is common practice for similar situations. In this case, I only striped the area that's actually held by the Somaliland government.

As for the Turkish, thanks for asking. (I assume you're a Turk?) I'm making some progress and can communicate in simple situations. But I still find that for complicated situations I depend on Google Translate. --Quintucket (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User warning templates

Hello, user Quintucket. Thanks for the reminding regarding the anonymous user. Thought you say so about some of them being less experienced, but I still believe not all are rookies. That's why I don't want to be cruel by changing the protection level because I want to give chance to other users who knows more about this Arab Spring and their experience to do so. That's why I also warn him/her that his/her action will be the consequences to others who can't even edit just because of this few little tiny vandals who screw it up. As for this January 2012 Arab Spring and other article is getting dangerous (by exaggerating saying) because I can notice there a lot of bias view for this Arab Spring from various sides, especially at one time one user tries to make the date of 2011 Bahraini Uprising as lasted one day, which to me he's being anti-revolt. Regarding the registration thing, I did have a user, but I don't have much time to do so, hence I was lazy to sign in. But I'll let you know soon. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Reply

Hello, user Quintucket. I think its a good idea. A lot of users tends to misjudge such that almost all the IP address users are advocated to vandalism, and when it comes to long-time IP address like mine, they still will ignore it. I didn't know that my current IP can last for so long as when most of the time I edit it day-by-day, it changes my address.

However, before I end this comment, why is my right-bottom corner of the monitor has the feedback Improve this article on it whenever I come to the Arab Spring article? I heard the IP address users can't shut it down. Would you shut it for me? Thanks. 60.49.63.145 (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censor bars

OccupyNipplesSuperBowlXLVI.jpg is not self-promotion; it's a clever example of co-optation (along the lines of the graphics of the on-line anti-SOPA protests). Furthermore, it's not my project. I'm a guy —no one's interested in my nipples! kencf0618 (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised. Any rate, my apologies. You linked to a Facebook page, and I assumed "Occupy Nipples" was an avant garde group at your college, or something of that nature. I usually revert additions of Facebook links without much thought, unless the connection for the page is blindingly obvious. Go ahead and revert back, if you'd like. I don't understand your reason for adding it though. Maybe that's just my problem. --Quintucket (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added it because it was a clever and sexy example of agitprop. That said, I believe that Censor bars deserves an article of its own because they are an artifact, and arguably the iconic artifact, of censorship. They are mostly used in text, and occasionally in video, whereas pixelization is used only in video and photography and not within bodies of text. Both are used as redaction and sanitization techniques, but they should be parsed apart a bit IMHO. kencf0618 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I'm an inclusionist, and don't really care what you add except where biographies of living persons are concerned. But if you don't want an edit war with Delicious carbuncle, you should probably make sure you de-coatrack it (no emphasis on SOPA), and provide more sources than TV tropes and Facebook. (User-generated sources aren't well looked on at Wikipedia.) --Quintucket (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've de-coatracked it, and I'll do a bit of research. It's true that the current citations are on the light side, but the low-hanging fruit were picked on Wikipedia long, long ago. I was struck that none of the anti-SOPA websites during their black-outs utilized pixelization as graphic devices, but rather good old-fashioned censor bars, hence the article. kencf0618 (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw. Like I said on the talk page, right now there's not enough information to justify an article, however I'm an eventualist and inclusionist, so I'm patient and have no objections. Keep in mind that I'm not the one who created the redirect, I merely changed the target. I'm not sure about the SOPA protests though. Those seemed to be a reference to government redaction of documents (the original redirect), whereas the TVTropes entry referred to using images in place of pixelization (my redirect). Regards, Quintucket (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Delicious carbuncle has redirected it again despite the changes, as he apparently deems me to have been soap-boxing and using Wikipedia as my personal photo album. I still believe that censor bars as an iconic artifact of censorship deserve an article, but this isn't the hill I chose to die on. Thank you for giving this matter due consideration. kencf0618 (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Nationality Law

Hi Quintucket. On the talk page for the Italian Nationality Law article, I wrote a response to your question. I'm from Pittsfield, MA and I'm an Italian citizenship law wonk because of the years that I spent processing my citizenship claim, and my frequent reading and translating of materials about the topic. That adoption scenario looks like one that I read about on a message board, so I have had an occasion to think about it and draw a conclusion in the past. Still, I cannot certify through case information that someone would be able to use my logic and succeed in a claim.Corwin78 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC) My name has changed from Corwin78 to Italick. Italick (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Like I said it's hypothetical for now because this girl claims not to be interested. –Quintucket (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[reply]

NKR

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

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

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

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

Başakşehir

You have added new population figures for Başakşehir, İstanbul. But the figures you have added and the figures in your source don't match.[5] So I fixed them. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields.
Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either.
00:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chile

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

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

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