User talk:Quinn2425

Quinn2425, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Quinn2425!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Chippewa Tribe letter to Karl May Museum.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Chippewa Tribe letter to Karl May Museum.pdf. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mark Worth with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection

Hello Quinn2425,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Quinn2425. You have new messages at Samtar's talk page.
Message added 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, I've replied to your query. In short, you can visit WP:REFUND or ask the deleting admin. Please remember to sign your posts -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection 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/Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection

Please note that once an article has been deleted in an AFD discussion, you cannot simply recreate the same article with the same bad referencing again. An organization gets a Wikipedia article on the basis of substantive reliable source coverage about it in media, not on the basis of its own self-published content about itself or blogs or user-generated discussion forums or having its existence nominally namechecked in articles about other things — if you want to recreate an article about it again, you have to reference it better than the deleted version, because if you just keep using the same references that weren't acceptable the first time it's just going to get redeleted. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mark-Worth-Brussels-2015.png

A tag has been placed on File:Mark-Worth-Brussels-2015.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

F3. Copyright notice on permission link states material is for non-commercial use only.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Majora (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mark Worth.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Mark Worth.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 "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. Majora (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mark-Worth-Brussels-2015.png

A tag has been placed on File:Mark-Worth-Brussels-2015.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 19 May 2005, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

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 "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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Safiel (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Goodman

Please see this discussion. --Edcolins (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And see WP:BLPPRIMARY -- this information stays out unless there is a secondary source. And even then it might stay out unless there is consensus to add it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Mark athens.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mark athens.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Quinn2425. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 14:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Mark Worth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 ( in the enhanced toolbar, or if you use the old "classic" toolbar) 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. Primefac (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quinn2425: I assume you still didn't see this but please sign your comments. It creates a lot of confusion and work when you do not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Quinn2425. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date are entirely about Mark Worth and issues he pursues in the real world, and are promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Quinn2425. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with XXX, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Native American scalps at Karl May Museum

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 Native American scalps at Karl May Museum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent

You urgently need to respond to Jytdog's comments above. Your recent edits to food irradiation are based on primary sources so not acceptable, but if you have any connection to Food & Water Watch or Mark Worth, you have a conflict of interest. As an advocate for transparency I guess you have no problem with that. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Native American scalps at Karl May Museum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Native American scalps at Karl May Museum 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/Native American scalps at Karl May Museum 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Whistleblower shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Jytdog (talk)

April 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Courcelles (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Guide to appealing blocks to contest this decision. Courcelles (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2018 (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).

Quinn2425 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

unfair and bizarre block

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2018 (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.

I was blocked two days ago after I participated in a quite civil manner in an AfD discussion for the since-deleted Mark Worth entry, and for posting one plainly facetious comment on the talk page of an editor who was posting irrelevant, mean-spirited and foul comments in the AfD discussion. If Wikipedia's response to people who disagree with foul-mouthed and mean-spirited editors and administrators is to block them from editing, then Wikipedia has a problem. I request the restoration of my editing privileges. I also request an inquiry into the editor who -- according to his/her activity log -- made the decision to delete the Mark Worth entry in less than one minute. This cannot possibly be credible or serious. Even though Wikipedia is not a professional source of information, millions of people consider it and rely on it as such. Decisions to delete articles should not be made in such a rash and capricious manner. Quinn2425 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see from the block itself, it mostly has to do with the sockpuppetry. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not sure what you mean about deleting the page in "one minute" - administrators have scripts that allow us to close an AFD and delete the page in one click. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: They're presumably referring to the fact that Spartaz deleted another article one minute earlier. Given the very clear consensus though, that doesn't seem unreasonable. And of course, it could be 119 seconds later. SmartSE (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]