User talk:Doc Quintana/Archive 3

Thanks

The you have a new message banner always scared me lol, but thanks for the welcome :) RNL89 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander H. Kennedy

I appreciate your caution, but that was vandalism. Dloh cierekim 01:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, you should Assume Good Faith until otherwise proven. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will respectfully submit that not many people born in 1994 are

admirals
noted humanitarians
athletes
Liberator of Mexico
Founder of Scientology
Former US President

and so much more. One must recognize deliberate confabulation and introduction of false information. At the very most generous, one might consider it a test page. Still a candidate for speedy deletion. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article was definitely CSD worthy, but it's best to Assume good faith with the newbies, and just speedy the article and let it go unless they do it again. Once they do it again, then it's vandalism.

Let me quote directly from WP:VAND

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent response, Doc. When the time comes, I can argue that you are not likely to run amok with the tools. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my friend, and I apologize if I sounded too confrontational. I looked at that after writing it a few minutes later and wondered. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

York League teams

Hi there

Apologies, I only just noticed your message on my talk page - I missed it among a barrage of other messages. If you, as article creator, are happy for the articles to be deleted, I can speedy delete them. TBH the teams don't meet the WP:FOOTY project's notability requirement of having competed in a national cup. Why not incorporate the info into a table something like the one at Midland Football Alliance.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. One thing, do you think anyone would mind if there were more columns in a similiar graph? Doc Quintana (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not. If you put {{db-g7}} on the articles, myself or another admin will be along to delete them.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, just noticed that someone else has also edited A & S, so the g7 would not be valid. I'll PROD that one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The way I see it as long as you're not causing a fuss, it doesn't really how it's done as long as it's done. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Amotherby & Swinton F.C.

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amotherby & Swinton F.C., has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amotherby & Swinton F.C.. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TD vs TL

I am just notifying you that I edited one of your !votes on an AfD, to change {{td}} to {{tl}}, because I believe it was the source of formatting problems that were causing all !votes placed after yours to be indented and improperly spaced, and also adding a white square at the bottom (albeit invisible to anyone who uses a white background anyway). See the history of the page and of my sandbox. Since it seems likely to me that you meant {{tl}}, I went on and changed it, and just wanted to notify you. —Soap— 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I tried to fix that myself but couldn't figure it out. Thanks for the notification. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It set the stage you say?

I don't really know if this is relevant.

Should we also link The Icesave dispute to this article?

The Viking invasions?

I think that we Icelanders in general do not have a problem with the arrival of the Brittish here during world war two, seeing as the country prospered during that time you could argue that we are a bunch of war profiteers. We did take it upon ourselvs to feed the brittish nation during the war and lost some good men for that effort, some claim that we were doing something noble that we should be proud of while others claim that the prices we sold our fish to a nation in trouble mounted to extortion.

Many things set the stage for the cod war, amongst them are the french and brittish wars, the roman empire, the creation of the united nations and a heap of other things. You sure that this operation fork belongs there as a link?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like instead to put templates for Icelandic and British history, that's fine with me. I think users should know about the context between the two countries in this article. If we can put the historical templates up there, I don't care if Operation Fork is removed. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to put up such templates. As for context between the two countries I don't think the capture of Iceland by the brittish during WWII is context really. Surely the context between the two countries is that one is almost a micronation with 300.000 people while the other is a nation of 61 million people and the two are neighbors. The only reason for having that link up was if it somehow lead to the codwars and the cause for them were Icelandic bitterness due to the occupation or something of the sort but that simply wasn't the case.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can put up a template for the two countries. Templates are no big deal. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK History Template

{{helpme}}Is there a History of the UK template lying around somewhere? I might make one if there isn't Doc Quintana (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{History of England}} perhaps? It seems to include the UK as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the addition of those templates to the Cod Wars article I realize that putting them up was an effort to better the article and such efforts are very respectable but I mustg admit that I don't think that they are accomplishing that mission and are infact making the article somehow less than it was previously. Do you think that the templates better the article? I'd aprreciate your opinion on the matter.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do. If you'd like, I could create more specific templates for Iceland and Britain rather than Scandanavia and England. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the new additions to the article better it really but I can't predict how more specific templates would look like. One thing which I dislike about the new appearance of the article is how much space these templates are occupying on the page, could that perhaps somehow be adjusted? I am inclined to wait and see what these more specific templates will look like before reverting changes or getting into discussions on the talkpage about these new additions to the article so by all means lets see what we can do first.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Ah, you removed it.

I was in the process of making it appear the same, but removing it from the category. When a talk page has the {{helpme}} on it, it alerts helpers that someone has a question.

No problems with you having the display of the template, if you want - I was arranging it so that it looked the same but was not 'live'.

You want to talk? Click this or this! Chzz ► 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Interesting fact; Help:A Day in the Life is one of very few 'cross-namespace redirects' - due to the prefix 'help:' it is in the help namespace, but redirects to the article. Chzz ► 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas and advice. I can't explain it, i've just been in a rut lately. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems there; we all have that from time-to-time. I recommend either a dose of Wikipedia:Unusual_articles, or possibly a good old rant in WP:AFD. But do feel free to hang out in the help channel some time; we could really do with more experienced users there, and we do have a bit of fun at the same time. Chzz ► 17:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 supports, 9 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help and feedback

Hi Doc.

I see you welcomed D4rkshine. D4rkshine has requested that someone move User:D4rkshine/The Ventura Project into article space. I don't have enough knowledge of the Notability requirements for Music articles to make a good call, but as you play the drums, you are more qualified than I am. Would you be willing to check it out, move it if ready, or offer feedback if it isn't ready?

If that doesn't work for you, or even if it does, there's also a very stale request at User:Hobby6/The Football Trade Directory. I know little about American football, and almost nothing about non-American football, so perhaps you could make a better assessment of that draft than I could.

Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

BTW, I'm trying to solicit help to give better feedback to new editors - Feedback_Patrol is my first stab at getting organized. Comments welcome.--SPhilbrick T 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it out! Doc Quintana (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance. I received another football request in the last few minutes, but I'm checking to see if one of the other Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Members can help here.

Reversion of Edit on Don Martin (Austin, Texas)

I have reverted your addition of notability and resume tags to Don Martin (Austin, Texas). This has been discussed thoroughly on the articles talk page and the consensus of the editors was that both of those issues had been addressed. There are still other issues with the article, and you are welcome to join in the conversation on the outstanding issues. Thank you for patrolling articles, and for helping to maintain Wikipedia standards. GregJackP (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll check the talk page just in case, the notability seems suspect still, but consensus is consensus. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Doc Quintana - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you

But I don't know you very well and haven't had a chance to go through your edit history deep enough to be able to answer the question of whether I think you're involving yourself "too much" or "just enough" in the troubles of ANI and other areas of conflict. And I'd rather give you an honest answer than a feel-good "you'll be fine, don't worry", so I promise to try to form a more educated opinion soon. (Though, as I made clear on White Shadows' page, I don't have a problem with spending lots of time on ANI myself, but it seems to me that some RfA voters do.) —Soap— 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank spam!

Hello, Doc Quintana. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transposing Help Question From Earlier

{{helpme|hi, i'm looking for the .pngs of those little checkmarks and x's i've seen here and there. I thought I saw it at WP:RFCU, but apparently it was a picture of a cat smelling socks.}}

{{done}}, {{notdone}}. I prefer {{done-t}} as a plain text method for all browsers. —fetch ·comms 20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there one of the done-t's with a circle around it? Doc Quintana (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, as I don't think there's a unicode character for that (there's ☑ though), but the image based one is {{fixed}}. —fetch ·comms 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Template

Yeah, it was my fault when i think about it now. I saw the line for the two who advances below the 3rd ranked team but since they were equal it was right. Sorry again... Kante4 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back. Kante4 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no problem. Thanks for noticing me. Kante4 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, thanks. Kante4 (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will follow it. But now, GO GERMANY! ;) Kante4 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i am. That´s why sometimes i am searching for words. ;) Doesn´t matter who we face, we´re a tournament team. We get better with every round ;). Kante4 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic Bias

{{helpme|Hi all, I believe i've seen at one point a policy here on Wikipedia that the encyclopedia should be written from a worldwide view, and I was wondering where that was if it's still aroundDoc Quintana (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

I think you're probably thinking of Wikipedia:Systemic bias - or, at least, that should link to the right place.

I moved this down the end; please add new sections at the end of the talk page, to keep things in order. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Cup group table templates

Please stick to the status quo until the discussion is resolved. The current method has been in use for a very long time and it is very easy to understand. Please read my reply to your discussion on the Group C template talk page. – Pee Jay 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, regardless of how long this method has been used, it's not easy to understand -- neither England nor the US have any edge over the other, so neither is completely holding the final slot for the group. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point though. The point of the green line is to show that the top two teams at the end of the group stage will qualify, not that either team has qualified thus far. When a team is guaranteed qualification, their row is changed to a pale green (not the green you applied). – Pee Jay 21:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're understanding then. Slovakia is the top team there, but England and the US are tied for the second slot. So there are three teams going for two slots. Which team is portrayed as above the green line and which one is portrayed as below it? If the fill in is for clinching, that's fine, but having one team above the green line and one team below it when they're equal is inaccurate. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who does not understand. The green line does not relate to the teams but to the table. Either way, FIFA.com lists the USA as being in second place, ahead of England. – Pee Jay 21:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I understand completely. FIFA has England and the US as tied for 2nd place, and has the US arbitrarily above England. England is not in 3rd place in the group. If you and others cannot accept this simple fact, I may have to open a Request For Comment, which would be unfortunate because it's a very simple concept to understand that the US and England are tied for second place and putting a green line between them that makes it seem otherwise is misleading. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing two separate ideas. The teams' order in the table is unrelated to the green line, which only shows which positions teams must be in at the end of the group stage if they are to qualify for the Round of 16. I simply do not understand how you can be so dense about this issue. – Pee Jay 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks from you here have transcended the avoidance of the fact that England and the US are currently tied. I will inform you of the notices on WP:AN/EW and any other administrative noticeboards on your behavior as they arise. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seemed to be the most appropriate location for the issue. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another q

V brief note to say...that is an excellent question, and I want to answer it fully - and I will; but it's not urgent, so I'll answer ASAP; might be a couple of days. I'll let you know. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the delay. Whenever you're free. From your talk page, i'm guessing you're a soccer fan like me (yes, it is a'sociation football, not just football, as those of us over in the US, Canada, Ireland and Australia can tell you
;-) )Doc Quintana (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Bill Shankly on that one; Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.

I often joke about it being football, not "soccer" - but I'm only kidding, really; it doesn't matter, it is The Beautiful Game. Thanks for your understanding. Chzz ► 01:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Hello. When you patrol new pages, all articles that you have looked at should be marked patrolled, whether you marked them for deletion or deemed them acceptable, unless you are not sure. This saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thank you. I accidentally re-warned the articles creator. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC) {{helpme|I have a question on how to proceed on an issue for an admin on a fairly frustrating issue for me}} What is your question? --Mysdaao ^talk 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can i help? Do you need an admin? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome

I checked to correct some things from the English version of the Wikipedia. I correct the things that I have knowledge (articles related to Argentine football mainly), always making quotes and references obviously, with the help of the Google Translator, because I'm from Posadas (Argentina), and I don't know write very well in English. Thanks again.--Rojoposadas (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

You put a message on my talk page about recent reverts, then removed it and put a welcome page. Is there a way I could see which pages got reverted and why? I couldn't find it, and my edits seemed to be the same. Starwrath (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualMediaWorks re-opened

I have re-opened the above AfD, as references had been added to the article since the last comment was left, and no one had addressed these new references.

Your input at the discussion would be most welcome! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Doc Quintana, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Doc Quintana/Association Football Competitions. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply to owner here

World Cup templates

I'm sorry that you're having a difficult time understanding the purpose of the green lines, but consensus appears to be clear on every discussion I've seen. Please take it back to the talk pages if you disagree. --Onorem ♠Dil 18:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]