User talk:Quindie

Welcome!

Hello, Quindie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles by casualties

Hey there. I noticed your new edition to the list of battles by casualties, adding Watling Street. I'm afraid to say that Wikipedia articles are not accurate references. Only published books, some websites, and various scholarly works meet this criteria. For more, I'd point you to the WP:Reliable sources page. One way that you can try to go about finding reliable sources is by searching in Google books, most of the results you come up there will be reliable and you can cite them, using the {{cite book}} according to WP:CITE guidelines. Sorry if all this sounds confusing to you, I know it sure did to me when I was knew. If you can find a source and add it, I can polish it up for you if you're having trouble with the template formatting and such. As it is, I'll let the addition of Watling Street stand for a while so you can have time to find and add a citation to a reliable source. If you have any questions about this or something else on Wikipedia, feel free to let me know and I'll try to give you a hand. – Joe N 01:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Jarvis

Hello! The article you created, Jack Jarvis, looks great and is well-written. You wouldn't happen to have any sources for it, would you? AlexHOUSE (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory in the Space Race

Hi there,

For now, I am agreeing with you to leave the "results" section in the infobox blank in the Space Race article. But there is a very good argument in favour for the Americans and goes like this: They beat the Soviets to the moon, with a technologically more advanced spacecraft and rocket system, that the Soviets never actually replicated; as well, the fact that the American program was open, i.e., live broadcasts and advanced warning when a launch would happen, the Americans gained a huge propaganda win with the Gemini and then of course the Apollo programs.

As well, the Space Race can be seen as battle; a replacement for a "real" battle between the superpowers, as they were fighting in this non-combative way. I, and many other scholars, would pick the date of the end of the space race about six years sooner than the article does, 24 July 1969, when Apollo 11 splashed down. But the apparent consensus on Wikipedia is the ASTP mission, in 1975, was the end, so I have deferred to the consensus (it is a natural ending point anyway, because that was Project Apollo's last flight, the mission was a joint co-operative mission, etc....)

Going back to the point on how to determine if victory could be achieved, is a little more sketchy, but since most noted scholars believe that the race didn't end with Vostok 1, it has to be assumed that the race to the moon was the real goal for both nations. It was only in the past 25 years[,] that we in the West[,] really knew that for sure, as older arguments, sometimes made by the Soviets, were that they had no lunar missions planned. Since the Soviet archives have been opened, we now know that was not true, and that their lunar program went in high gear in 1964, though much of it was already preliminarily started as far back as 1962. So for me, the ultimate victory was a combination of Apollo 8's flight around the moon in 1968, which was the very first flight to another celestial world, and obviously Apollo 11's moonwalk in July 1969.

All of these arguments combined mean that the Americans won it, but as you pointed [out] in one of your editing notes, it didn't really matter who won it, both sides achieved major firsts in human spaceflight, and by saying one side or the other won the race would, in some ways, demean the value of those achievements.

Take care,

--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of battles by casualties

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of battles by casualties, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by casualties. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Rubikonchik (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra's page

Facism ? Since when has facism being deleting unsourced content. Footballgy (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historian

It is true that the letter "h" is not a vowel; but that is not the only factor to consider when choosing "an" instead of "a" when constructing the indefinite article. Correct English is "an historian", just as "an hotel" is also correct English. BBC newsreaders often say "an historic event". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...

You might want to edit your user page. You spelt "bloostained" wrong. JonChapple ^Talk 10:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble? I presume you must be referring to the lovely message left on my page by the esteemed Mr Domer a few days ago. He's lovely, isn't he?
And there's nothing confused about my views, dear boy! I'm not the teenaged Marxist Wiki-lutionary with a misguided grudge against my own kith and kin. All the best. JonChapple ^Talk 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I fail to see what the FTQ has to do with anything. JonChapple ^Talk 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm free to delete what I want from my own talk page; just as you're free to delete this. And I'm sure you're aware calling someone that disagrees with your own particular world-view "scum" is very much against Wiki rules. JonChapple ^Talk 11:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C task force

Hello, you have a userbox which suggests you are a fan of Celtic F.C. I am hoping to start up a task force for Celtic at WikiProject Football.
If you are interested please reply here. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I DO do that. Your website is broken.

You clearly don't. Why does it work for everyone else? See? JonChapple ^Talk 11:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the source code for everything I type. See those little "~ ~ ~ ~"'s? That's what I type, like I am told to, after everything I do. Quindie 11:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil

Hi Quindie. In a recent edit summary on Come Out, Ye Black and Tans you accussed me, as the original editor of the piece you were changing, of insulting behaviour. In future, please remember WP:civil and assume good faith. The information in question, if you read the ref, was about Celtic FC and sectarianism, within a larger article about the Old Firm and sectarianism and violence - so is perfectly valid although I'm happy enough to leave your edit as it is. There was no mention of Republicanism anywhere in my contribution, which makes your comment somewhat bizarre. Mattun0211 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Quindie. Please don't take that comment personally. The point I was making is that using emotive words like insult tends to be counter productive. Wiki is all about having different points of view and working constructively. The point I was making is that edit summaries like that don't help and can lead to edit wars. Best to stick to Wiki policies, questioning refs, sources etc. As I've said, I'm happy enough with the edit. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Incidentlly, are you really clicking on the wiki markup symbol for adding your signature. I can't see how that could possibly not work. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was just because edit summary etiquette falls under WP:civil. Let's call it a day on this one. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BATF and Waco

The contemporary (1992-1993) news accounts, government documents, etc. use the acronym BATF. So for historical accounts like the Ruby Ridge and Waco siege, I would use BATF. (Currently the agency uses the acronym ATF internally. BATFE was used for a short period of time when it was decided to return to using a three letter acronym.) Naaman Brown (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC) A quick check of a contemporary document produced for the government ("Report and Recommendations Concerning the Handling of Incidents Such As the Branch Davidian Standoff in Waco Texas", by Alan A. Stone, M.D., November 10, 1993), shows BATF and ATF used interchangeably. The real anachronism would be use of BATFE or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, a 2000s addition to the name. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Roll of Honour (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roll of Honour (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll of Honour (song) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Roll of Honour (song)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Roll of Honour (song), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:24, 21 January 2012 (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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Quindie. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]