User:GenQuest
User's local time
| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GenQuest. |
 |
GenQuest (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Member priorities
[edit]
Member since 06 November 2008. Rollbacker; Article Reviewer; Copy Editor; Newbie Helper and Article Mergers. I was born and raised in Chicago, IL; currently residing in San Antonio, Texas. I have resided in, vacationed in, and/or worked in 49 of the 50 United States. (Alaska, I'm looking at you...)
Interests
[edit]I have had a varied and eclectic work and educational background.
My educational background includes major interests in history; biology; Latin; grammar; astronomy; gemology; and advertising.
I was a BASIC and Visual Basic programmer back in the day. I have had life-long interests in, and worked as, an entertainer (including stage, radio, and TV, including script-writing, story-boarding, set design and construction, and performing. I still periodically perform as a Radio and Mobile DJ). I am a published genealogist.
I have owned my own businesses; and I have worked in corporate America (diamond sales, retail management), Blue collar (skilled construction); as well as medium to small business enterprises (advertising and entertainment agencies). I write corporate newsletters and have contributed to local and national newspapers, retail catalogs, and broadcast media. This requires a working knowledge of grammar, proper punctuation, and lay-out (including graphic, table, and picture placements).
As an active steinologist, I am a true believer of its basic precepts.
On Wikipedia, a hobby of mine, history is a very strong interest, as is copy editing, reliable referencing (re.: checks, creation, and inclusions), and article merging. Other Wikipedia interests include:
- Creation of Wikipedia articles with meaningful content
- Historically accurate place names and dating
- A cohesive writing style, with strong adherence to the MoS
- Proper grammar, punctuation, and written English;
- The War of Independence—(or "American Revolutionary War" for you Brits)
- Colonial, national, territorial and state border developments
- Accurate biographical and immediate family information of article subject(s)
- Illinois – North Carolina – Tennessee – Texas
- Colonial America and Native American interaction
- Helping new articles and new editors get off the ground
- Geographical changes or events
This editor has given thanks
to these Wikipedians.
This editor has been thanked
by these Wikipedians.
Works
[edit]
PHOTOS by GenQuest
|
|---|
|
.jpg)
Templates Created
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||
Quotes and Quotables
|
|---|
It's Called
|
Category Creations
|
|---|
|
I no longer create Categories, as I am repeatedly told that Lists are more informative, as once again one of my original 16 categories is getting deleted. I should think, then, that categories are highly redundant and should simply be abandoned as an encyclopedic tool here; they should then all be replaced by a system of List and Index articles. GenQuest "Talk to Me" |
Action needed
[edit]Currently needed 3rd opinions
[edit]Third opinion disputes
 | The third opinion process is neither mandatory nor binding. This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party. |
Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.
The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.
How to list a dispute
[edit]Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.
It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.
In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.
Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.
Instructions
[edit]No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.
Follow these instructions to make your post:
- Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
- Your entry should contain the following:
- a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
- a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
- a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
- Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.
Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.
If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.
Active disagreements
[edit] | After reading the above instructions, add your dispute to this section, below this message.
If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list. Example entry:# Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement in countries where fair use does not exist. Disagreement about relevance of section and sources. 12:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
- Talk:International Committee of the Red Cross#Removal of 'Criticism' section Dispute regarding whether or not to remove a criticism section. 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Talk:BiglyBT#Tags Dispute over whether a notability and primary-sourcing tag should remain on the article. 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:A picture of you#"Welcome_to_Wikipedia!" Should this essay begin with the phrase "welcome to Wikipedia"? 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Feedback
[edit]Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see its documentation and Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log.
Providing third opinions
[edit]
When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the edit summary how many disputes remain. Example of summary message: 5 items remain on the list
- Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
- Read the arguments of the disputants.
- Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
- Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
- Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
- Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
- If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
- For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.
Use template
[edit]- The {{3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):
{{subst:3OR|<your response>}}
{{subst:3ORshort|<your response>}}
Declining requests
[edit]If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:
- It should be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
- It should explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
- It should suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")
Volunteers
[edit]Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.
Adding {{Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links:
Third opinion disputes {{Wikipedia:Third Opinion}}<small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Third opinion|action=edit§ion=3}} update], {{purge}}</small>
State of the project
[edit]
| AfC | US | Vandalism | |
|
Wikipedia vandalism information  Low to moderate level of vandalism
3.60 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 01:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
>>> The Sound of Wikipedia <<
(...put on those headphones...)
US
[edit]Come by daily for a new hint:
| Tip of the day... |
 Editing articles for web accessibility
Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers. While editing articles, keep in mind the goal of making Wikipedia web accessible. All users, regardless of ability, should be able to read, navigate, and contribute to Wikipedia easily. The Accessibility section of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) is a valuable resource that provides helpful guidelines. In addition, Accessibility dos and do nots is a quick summary of the most important guidelines for editors. WikiProject Accessibility is a group of editors promoting better access for disabled and other users. For more information, such as what you can do to help, see the main project page. – – |
| Become a Wikipedia tipster To add this auto-updating template to your user page, use {{totd b}} |
Editor Banners
[edit] |
 | This user has written or expanded 10 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. |
 | This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years. |
| en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
 | This user is of Irish ancestry |
 | This user is of Scottish ancestry. |
 | This user was born in Illinois. |
| Lib | This user believes in the principles of Libertarianism. |
 | This user demands Liberty or Death. |  |
| $ ¥ € £ | This user believes that the profit motive makes network news reporting inaccurate and biased. † |  |
|
This user wants to reform the United Nations. |
 | This user has visited 48 of the 50 United States. | 48 |
 | This user survived an infection of COVID-19 (Contracted July 28, 2022). |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
|||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| |||||
.svg){kind=small}
.png)
.
.
|
This user is aware that, in the end, it's only Wikipedia.
|
- Members of the Ten Year Society of Wikipedia editors
- Wikipedian WikiGnomes
- Wikipedia dispute resolution
- Wikipedians in the United States
- Wikipedia Did you know contributors
- Members of the Fifteen Year Society of Wikipedia editors
- User en-N
- Wikipedians in Illinois
- WikiProject North Carolina participants
- Wikipedians interested in North Carolina
- WikiProject Illinois participants
- Wikipedians interested in Illinois
- WikiProject Tennessee participants
- Wikipedians interested in Tennessee
- WikiProject Texas participants
- Wikipedians interested in Texas
- Wikipedians interested in United States history
- WikiProject United States History participants
- WikiProject Science participants
- Wikipedians interested in science
- Mergist Wikipedians
- WikiProject Wikify participants
- Wikipedians on the Typo Team
- WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors participants
- WikiProject Trivia Cleanup participants
- Wikipedians in the Kindness Campaign