User talk:Quickwik

This user may have left Wikipedia. Quickwik has not edited Wikipedia since April 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

'Clarity, Brevidy, Inclusion

Every time you craft a new sentence, you have comitted "original research" '

No new ideas = No rare enteries ...when some government invades some place or a news story unfolds that is a new idea --usually by some mad man.

deletion bad, priorities good

... interested in "Hot topics" where NPOV is illdefined ... the persuit of objectivity.. 8-))

Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:replies editing, great page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too. help pages, village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

You can introduce yourself new users page.
You can find... open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~ Quickwik 14:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC) weee... :)[reply]

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 04:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) ... welcome to Wikipedia. Have fun. Rossami

United Holyland

United Holyland entry was deleted after several people said untrue things and made conditional votes against it questioning without checking to see if the meme is in fact supported by a ground swell of support --particularly in the much maligned islamic community.

... whoever deleted it from wikipedia also saw to getting it removed from google the same day too. '"creepy'"

Scriptural Justifications for a United Holyland

Scriptural Justifications for a United Holyland was a specific collection which this encycolpedia lacks and WAS NOT VOTED ON Your asertion that a majority of some governing body decided against it sounds incorrect.

Wikipedia has hundreds of pages cronicaling violence in the midle east (overwelmingly against Arabs) and no page for the commonly supported idea of a uninion of states for equal rights. United Holyland

Editing comments

...You can use summary for each edit.

Thanks.. .. I'd like an 'input space' to enter the summery when I click save.. save a lot of time and everyone could annotate much more easily..

Rough prose

spending my time pondering weather there's a more suscint definition of meme lately.. what a rare branch of infomatics.. ouuummm..

Collaborative software

Hi Quickwik... moved some text you posted to Collaborative software to Talk:Collaborative software, .... Thanks for your help! Wmahan . 03:13, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

Thanks, I tweaked it.. so far sounds ok.. I favor leaving... prose in place and simply adding or maybe "ranking"changes. ...This is related to the idea of a chain of relavance. The talk pages could be segmented to various issues also.. There are convienance factors but also structural fectors of the dificult issues.. I wonder How about an Issuepedia? [ you mean like this? --Woozle 16:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

Be bold! If someone believes that redirect shouldn't be there, it's up to them to change it. -- Graham :) | Talk 15:09, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Minor edit before marking any more edits as minor. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. Mike Church 20:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)... "minor edits," ... Thanks, Slrubenstein

Wikipedia:Government

I'm afraid I don't think a personal essay like this should be in the WP namespace, unless it's proposing a policy, etc. Jwrosenzweig 20:21, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was'nt so much personal as a proposal for a discussion of infomatics of wiki.. I moved them

also ...meta.wikipedia.org (unifyed wikispace.. ideas) (would contain many disambiguation pages...perhaps..

Well, the topic is important, but having it as a Wikipedia page implies that it is policy or proposed policy, which it isn't. It's just a dicussion.... Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where does one propose "policy"? (keeping in mind that it is rather complex..)

In these sorts of discussions (and they come up often enough) a page is usually posted at http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government or something like that, and then you place a notice at the Wikipedia:Village pump .... Does this sound acceptable to you? Jwrosenzweig 21:16, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the meta wiki is not connected to the general wiki-space /// requires other logins and m:pages do not referance easily..to w:pages?

BTW thanks for the thoughtfull exchange.. I'd like to see it work.even better!.

Wiki erosion

I notice little things..and extrapolate for instance, the Austin Powers page.. I added his rather famous quote "yea baby yea" and that was writen over in favor of a theory that the name "Austin" was derived from the "austin heily" car...

Knowledge, no matter how trivial, is rather dificult to defend on this form of system.

Perhaps my current concern is the fringes knowledge that could benifit from interconnectedness with the larger wikispace..

I'd like to see it all merge in some briliant seemless whole :) Forinstance if a word has a couple uses/meaning.. then the wiki-standard should always be a disambig page.. this might add an extra click to each lookup.. not a small thing to consider.. but it could greatly expand the great wikiness of it all..

The namespace is not available for the kind of discussion you're seeking....

It was "available". But obviously some people dissagree on things.. that's really the issue I'm interested in resolving.. For instance popularity of pages and other things could be calculated as well as mass reviews.. It's all rocket science right now of course..

If it's policy then put it on the page Wikipedia:government that discussion of the wiki organization cannot ocurr here and provide the correct link.. See?

... It's about making sure we are consistent about how we approach open-ended discussions vs. policy proposals, vs. new articles, etc.

Agreed.. It's a subtle hairball to be sure... :)

....policy proposals seem to fall under the set of open ended discussions.. So there are really only two catagories there... it seems.. Interesting though..

.... I just find your ideas inappropriate to the Wikipedia namespace.

Interesting I think the real issue is the "common use of words" when we break up things into "encyclopedia, meta-encyclopedia, dictionary, non dictionary.. it all creates a sort of rift between various uses of info and the access to it and to the collaboration of it all..

I'm trying to work with you.... other editors (perhaps a little less flexible than I) who will eventually see your page and immediately call for its being moved to your user subpage and deleted...

I know.. that's really an aspect of the wiki way that may need (dare I say) evolution..

deletions

...deleted pages should be moved to the user pages of those who were working on them.. not loose information --repell entropy that sort of thing.. Can that be implimented in the Delete protocol?

wiki government

Ok.. I have a forked version at User_talk:Quickwik/wiki-government The problem is the dividion between ease of linking to pages in meta.wiki since they are not on there the usefull data and most people are here..

What do you think of wiki--erosion?

.... :-) Meta is usually better, especially because the issues you're raising potentially impact all languages (not just en.wikipedia.org). Erosion? That seems less descriptive...

hyper-sphere and meta-archi

This is what I call the open hyper-sphere' the idea that wiki:gov could be a page untill someone things hey this is better.. perhaps you have but If I go to erosion will it mention the esoteric context of chaotic re-editing on wiki?

Go to meta.wikipedia.org and post new articles there under the titles government and erosion.

Thanks..(still grocking the m:links and w:links protocols..

"Put that on meta wiki" or "put that on dictionary" sounds a little like get that idea out of here... :) Still researching the isims..

networked wiki

This begs the question of a networked-wiki system...

Just so you know my perspective, I think the topic impacts many wikipedias, not just this one. ...any serious Wikipedian needs to get around to making a meta account because of the occasional important policy discussions that happen there. That's my two cents. Jwrosenzweig 15:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Powers 8--)

Hi Quickwik. I wanted to let you know that I changed some of your text at Austin Powers....... Thanks. Wmahan . 19:14, 2004 May 1 (UTC).

Yea, I previousy added "Yea Baby Yea" as a famous quote and it was overwritten for a blerb about the choice of the name austin..??.

Proper fourms

I have listed Wikipedia:Government and Wikipedia:Erosion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion ... Please see Wikipedia:Project namespace..... I look forward to seeing your comments in a more proper forum... . Wmahan . 19:39, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

I'm interested too since it's a little hard to find the proper fourm from the main page.. I'm not sure how to simplify or how it might evolve but I did notice the dificulty of finding things when one does not necessarily know what they are looking for.. Perhaps it's a proper handshake protocol..

Featured article - E-consensus

The addition of E-consensus to the Featured articles page was inappropriatee - before articles can be added there, they have to first go through the candidate process, as per the instructions on that page.

Thanks I added it as a candidate but it was removed without vote. This is the kind of thing I think is still unformed here...

please be more mindful of page instructions like that. →Raul654 18:17, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are new here, and you seem to be having particular trouble with E-consensus, ... We do want people to contribute, but you will find that Wikipedia already has an 'e-consensus' about how it operates. Going against that will just annoy people.

...exactly but it's not mentioned under e-concsneus and nowhere is it clearly stated.. what we have is an organic politic.. it will do some things but fail at others..

Firstly Wikipedia ... original research. By 'original research' we mean ...not widely accepted. .... We are an encyclopedia, not a research journal. There are plenty of places that are looking for original research.

There are two forces.. One is a compendium of the prosaic redundant, the other is a peer review...

I agree on the need for "consensus" (if it could be defined).. But what is really happening is that many entries are fundimentally a collision of ideals..it's peer review as a process and that is poorly defined.--a stampeed toward the steralized uncontrivercialized version of things

It's a subtle aspect of infomration systems but one I find central.. I hope my unrelenting critiqie is only taken for an earnest fondness of the wiki-medium.

Second, when you are writing about a ~~new~~ (poorly understood) concept, (this applies to most places) it is necessary to provide answers, not just ask questions. ...E-consensus seems mostly to be asking questions, and it's mostly questions that seem to have been asked already.

Sorry that is a valid point.. it won't matter cause the m:castle jumpers will hide the page soon enough... I will answer the questions but it's still a forming article.. it takes time.. look at Arab culture (if I remember right) it was all architecture and nothing else.. :/

Finally please sign your posts

Thanks.. Quickwik :)

I hope that's helpful. DJ Clayworth 19:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Goob

The contributions you are making are not helpful. Please bear this in mind before making further edits. If you would like to experiment, please use the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Fennec 16:14, May 5, 2004 (UTC) --

WIkipedia is an experiment.  One decidedly careening toward group think.

VfD

As per VfD, your page Anti-social software was deleted and moved to User:Quickwik/Anti-Social software. ugen64 23:46, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

And also as per VfD, your page E-consensus was deleted and moved to User:Quickwik/E-consensus. The talk page has been moved to User:Quickwik/E-consensus-talk. This essay may also be welcome at the meta-wikipedia and you may copy it there if you wish. UninvitedCompany 21:48, 11 May 2004 (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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Key Ideas in Human Thought moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Key Ideas in Human Thought, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Key Ideas in Human Thought

Hello, Quickwik. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Key Ideas in Human Thought, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Key Ideas in Human Thought

Hello, Quickwik. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Key Ideas in Human Thought".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]