User talk:Cquest~enwiki

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. abakharev 02:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since your eagerness to work on Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians has led to this warning, may I suggest that you take a look at the many other articles on Wikipedia, & work on some of them for a while? It would be a productive way to take a break from this article. -- llywrch 03:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted content on Controversy over race of Ancient Egyptians at least 4 times in disputes with at least 3 different editors. As a result, I have blocked you from editting on Wikipedia for 24 hours. Please take this time to reflect on your behavior, & how you could accomplish your goals in a less disruptive manner. -- llywrch 23:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits of Brownstone (group)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. And if YOU want a separate entry for Nicole Gilbert, YOU create it. - Chsf 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove content from a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . And quite obviously you do not care about any of the rules that apply to editorship on Wikipedia. – Chsf 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a redlink to Nicole Gilbert in [[Brownstone (Group}]]. I made Nicci Gilbert a redirect to Nicole Gilbert. Please work on that article if you wish, but please leave a little bit about her later career in the Brownstone article. I rolled back your latest reversion. Please stop edit warring. Fred Bauder 14:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Brownstonereal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brownstonereal.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Sessionchea.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sessionchea.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in the article Tim Donaghy

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Tim Donaghy. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Realkyhick 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Tdonaghy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tdonaghy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Tdonaghy.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tdonaghy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tdonaghy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tdonaghy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Cquest! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 4 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Winston C. Doby - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Mild Bill Hiccup. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Tulsa race riot seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tulsa race riots

Hello there. I dont know where to put this, but I am putting it here, hope you see it.

1. I take offense that you think I am writing something less than neutral. What gives you that idea? 2. Please prove me wrong. The Tulsa Race Riots are a domestic terror attack. They fit the definition of a domestic terror attack to a T. In fact, they fit the definition of a domestic terror attack more than any other. I suggest you do some research into the Tulsa Race Riots before you decide to revert anything again. Seriously, please get to know the situation. Watch a documentary. Read a book on it. Here is a 2 hour documentary to help get you started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4IvFXPGYNA. I think you really need to know the situation before making assumptions on people adding to wikipedia. Thats totally not cool, and I really take offense. Would make a lot more sense if you would just do your research on the Tulsa Race Riot, which is something I think you would admit you don't know much about at this time.

Please, state your case precisely why the Tulsa Race Riots are NOT a domestic terror attack so that we may properly debate this. Give me something to refute this. An entire city burned to the ground by an angry mob of people, phone lines cut so they could not call out, their homes ransacked for valuables before burning the homes down, churches bombed, planes flown over moderating everything, it was a complete wipe out of black residents by white residents. Everything about the Tulsa Race Riot was a domestic terror attack. PLEASE get to know the situation.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[3]

The Tulsa Race Riots qualifies not just for one but for all points. Violation, intimidation of a civilian population, an influence into government policy, an attempt to affect govt by mass destruction, and it all happened within jurisdiction of the US.

Please do your research. Thank you! :) Cquest (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Domestic terrorism in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You are both already at 4RR on this. Stop warring and discuss it. Meters (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cquest Meters (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you report me for something yet I am the only one logging in for my edits, the other guy is clearly hiding. Additionally I am the only one who wrote something on the Talk page about this. Not you or him or anyone else about this situation. I can see who you are defending here. Everything is so political here and all that is being done is the truth is being hidden because people bully to keep the status quo. Not cool at all. I have done nothing wrong, I do not even know what I am being investigated for. But I will not let these bullies take hide the truth. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cquest (talk • contribs) 06:36, September 8, 2014‎

At least three different editors have undone the edits now, not just one. Two of them are very experienced account editors, and the IP is certainly allowed to edit anonymously if he or she chooses to do so. I warned both you and the other major IP editor for edit warring because you were both at the point where you could have been blocked for edit warring, so I'm not defending anyone. I reported you for socking because I believe that you and the other two IPs making the identical edits are the same user. It's highly suspicious that one of the IPs popped up and made the identical edits that you did to the two articles just 4 minutes after I warned you for edit warring. Even if you are not socking, you have indeed done something wrong. Edit warring. POV edits, and making personal attacks in edit summaries and on talk pages are indeed wrong. Meters (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You calling this a POV edit is laughable. There is no POV edit. Its a domestic terror attack by DEFINITION. How is that my point of view? Defend your accusations of it being POV. You can't say that without any proof. I give you proof of the event itself as it being a domestic terror attack. Now show me how the events that took place that are documented here long before I edited the article are my POV?

And again, your logic is faulty when you discuss other editors. Just because someone has been here a long time does not mean they are innocent. In fact, it probably means they know how to game the system better than anyone. Longevity is not always a good thing.

Lastly, you think I have 3 ips making edits? That is just crazy talk and is you taking away from the issue at hand, the Tulsa Riots being a domestic terror attack, which it is. Stop with the trumped up charges and argue the merits. I have boxed in you regarding your argument. You said it essentially happened too long ago, I provided 2 other domestic terror attacks that happened before it happened. THe truth of the matter is you have no idea what you are talking about regarding the Tulsa Race Riot. This is not your wheelhouse so its not something you should be applying your attention to. You simply can't discuss something you have no knowledge of. You should alert editors with extensive knowledge, or at least people who would care to put in the time and effort to know what they are discussing since its extremely clear you have NO knowledge of the history of domestic terror attacks. Cquest (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Enough attacks. You ignored my suggestion that you redact your person attacks in Talk:Tulsa race riot and continued with attacks. Calling editors trolls and sockpuppets without taking the accusations to the appropriate forums, and calling their edits inane and crazy are personal attacks. Meters (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this. I won't be dragged into some back and forth nor will I be lectured to by someone misusing the word "attack" in an attempt to create a paper trail on me. I asked you to provide me with more information re your position on the Tulsa Race Riots. You have not done so. I will now assume this situation is settled as you have no counter argument. Have a good day! Cquest (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tulsa race riot shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cquest reported by User:Meters. Thank you Meters (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cquest~enwiki. You have new messages at Amortias's talk page.
Message added 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Amortias (T)(C) 23:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Tulsa race riot. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Wifione ^Message 10:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cquest~enwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I blocked? Because some guys are using bullying tactics and not discussing the tulsa race riot article at all. they are just working together to prevent actual discussion. THere is NO censuses. There are just guys helping each other out. Not cool. The truth is being silenced. Additionally, this is the first I am hearing I would be banned for "edit warring". I am not warring, these guys are refusing to actually discuss the article. I feel like they are trolling and want to use bullying tactics to keep things how they want them instead of accepting change. Cquest (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There does indeed seem to be a discussion on the article's talk page; the others editors do not agree with your position. It would be more helpful for you to resolve the dispute instead of reverting the article to your preferred version. You were explicitly warned about the edit warring policy, and indeed you have been blocked for similar behavior before. Kuru (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Read edit warring properly. You will understand why you've been blocked. Another administrator will review your unblock request soon. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 10:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SaintMaurice.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:SaintMaurice.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Cquest. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Cquest~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

11:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)