Jump to content

User talk:QuartzReload

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuartzReload (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 13 December 2015 (Reverted 1 edit by 71.244.136.253 (talk). (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is a recent changes patroller.
This user encourages the peaceful correction of vandals.



Welcome!

Hi, QuartzReload. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. ... discospinster talk 23:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


QuartzReload, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi QuartzReload! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Religion

Dear QuartzReload,

The previous article had discussions about the History of Freedom of religion presumably ancient and archaic laws. Those are not statutory and completely irrelevant . Look at the title for a start.


It also had multiple laws passed by State govts. I do not know why, the list was neither comprehensive nor informative. Why would you need such a list?

I have reoriented the article to give as little biased information as possible. It isn't wikipedia's job to be a compendium of laws.

The article wasn't cohesive, it used multiple tenses. I have also changed that.

I'm willing to listen to your argumnents about how it was better before but I do not appreciate the revert you made; I'm not a bot.

-Nana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanasid (talk • contribs)

@Nanasid: The topic is Freedom of religion in India, not "Current statutory laws on freedom of religion in India". History, traditions, and notable cases are all relevant. --NeilN talk to me 20:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanasid: Hi there, I am sorry that you feel my edit was incorrect. As said by User:NeilN, the information you deleted could quite easily be deemed as relevant. I distinctly agree reading the diffs of your edit and not having much of a problem with them, in fact I did consider them to be improvements in some cases, but then I saw that a large amount of content had been blanked in its place. Would you consider reintegrating the content into the article whilst keeping the other sections? And @NeilN: would you agree to this solution? Thank you. QuartzReload (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think this version has little to offer (sorry). Only the first sentence (already existing) and last paragraph (using already existing sources) are properly sourced. --NeilN talk to me 20:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: No problem, I was trying to find a solution to fit all. I have now seen your recommendation for user:Nanasid to try and get consensus through the talk page. I now personally believe that that will be the best solution for this matter as it will allow more people to have a say on this matter (as you said, it is a large removal). @Nanasid: That can be achieved through the talk page (linked here)
user:NeilN I don't follow. India has existed only for a few decades now. Furthermore the history cited is neither comprehensive nor unbiased. I don't understand what you mean by notable cases, perhaps you mean successful court petitions. There haven't been any which disallow the practice of religion in any form. I also don't know what this blanked is.

I removed most of the content because much of it isn't necessary and much was improperly cited. There is a citation about a news report printed on website which curates Religious News. This can't be treated as a reliable source, the original news article must be cited.

I believe Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a collection of random facts strung together. For instance going into gory detail about hate crimes is unnecessary. How does it even relate to Freedom of Religion? I've yet to meet anybody who's low key about their faith in India.

What you seem to have in mind is a history article. There isn't a problem with that, except the article right now has no comprehensive account of Indian history. India isn't just Ashoka and Mughals. Such a topic is too broad and nuanced and merits a book by itself. Nanasid (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to the post you've made on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 23:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, QuartzReload, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Tenodera aridifolia

I took out most of the information because it may be for another species. I have read that Tenodera sinensis is in Japan here:https://insects.tamu.edu/research/collection/hallan/Arthropoda/Insects/Mantodea/Family/Mantidae.txt. Tenodera airidifolia sinensis is now Tenodera sinensis so that might be why I read that Tenodera aridifolia live in Japan. Now Tenodera aridifolia may somewhere else. Tenodera aridifolia brevicollis I read lives in China. It would be strange if there are three species of Tenodera in Japan because I have not read anything about that. But maybe that is wrong that Tenodera sinensis lives in Japan. I will have to find information on what the Tenodera aridifolia look like (I have read somewhere that they are more slender than Tenodera sinensis).Happy1892 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately I cannot get many of the articles I was told has information about these mantids such as ensen, D., G. Svenson, H. Song, M. Whiting. 2009. Phylogeny and evolution of male genitalia within the praying mantis genus Tenodera (Mantodea: Mantidae). Invertebrate Systematics, 23: 409-421..Happy1892 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Can anyone read Chinese? https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0B_iJfIsJ4GB0YjE3YWMxOTQtNzEzMi00YTg5LTljMjctNjFjNGUxZGQ0MGZh&usp=drive_web http://mantodearesearch.com/literature/ Happy1892 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Happy1892Happy1892 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy1892: Ok, thanks. I was just checking. Maybe next time consider adding an edit summary to avoid scenarios like this. QuartzReload (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

sorry for that, have a kitty for my apologies. won't happen again, bby.

Zillinz (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to BTU

Thank you for cleaning up my edits. I am a noobie and had trouble with the reference entry. Warrenccook (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi QuartzReload. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Biblioworm 06:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Ichneumonoidea Discussion

QuartzReload should have read the changes to Ichneumonoidea 12/8. the previous edition was factually incorrect and misleading due to a dangling participle, failure to use proper nouns, and the improper use of case of plural when the singular should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphroug (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any misunderstanding re. that article. QuartzReload (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuartzReload&oldid=695118447"