User talk:Jonny Quick

Welcome!

Hello, Jonny Quick, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Qur'an

This, especially "And it should be filled with some words." is not constructive at all. If you're going to make suggestions like that please suggest specific text to add and reliable sources to back it up. --NeilN ^talk to me 01:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. It seems to me that the word "Islam" is connected quite a bit to acts of terrorism. As an "Average Reader off the Street", I would have assumed that at least some mention of all of that might be mentioned in the wikipedia article. Otherwise, it appears to the Average Reader that the article has been scrubbed for some reason. I could be wrong, but at the time that was my thinking. I care less about it now, but still felt (and feel) that some mention of the void should be mentioned, somewhere. It probably falls outside of some wikipedia rule(s), but I have no idea how there could be such a rule, or interpret one so that it has this result.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your edits, you seem less like an "average reader off the street" and more like someone who's pushing an agenda. Shabeki (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2015 (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 or 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) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be constructive to also add that, after the novice User learns to use the "4-tilde signature", it is no longer necessary to also type one's name. Maybe even give an example of the exact syntax. After all, it's a 'bot that's making these posts, a little adjustment in the 'bots script could go a long way.Jonny Quick (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurated lime

I just added linking brackets in the Treatment paragraph to the phrase, Sulfurated lime. The page for that does not mention use of this preparation for mange. Perhaps somebody with veterinary credentials can make the appropriate edit to that page. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A neighborhood stray has mange and is hanging around. I have a bottle of sulferated lime, but do not know what ratio to dilute it. I'm not paying for a Vet, so it's either this or nothing. A short statement of a typical dosage/dilution and application method would be useful.Jonny Quick (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page does mention the dilution now: Lime sulfur diluted 1:16 or 1:32. Perhaps err on the high side. More than one application is probably needed. Typically scabies need weeks to months for the lesions to clear up, mostly because it takes that long for the allergy and secondary infections to subside. After a few treatments, topical application of Neosporin to help kill the secondary infections may help a lot. SBHarris 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Common Era

Your post here was inappropriate. Talk pages are very different from a forum, where a post such as yours would be appropriate. At the top of the page it clearly says "NOTE: This is not a page for discussing CE/BCE; ". In addition, your post was an implicit attack on any editor using CE, calling them 'mentally retarded'. I've removed it. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fine, then. When I get some time I'll go back to the article and edit all the "BCE" and "CE" text to the non-retarded "BC" and "AD".Jonny Quick (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you might end up blocked for disruption as you can't discuss BCE without using it in an article about it, so I'd advise against it. And I repeat, please do not use talk pages as though they were forums to discuss the subject of the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'm losing interest, and not willing to risk punitive measures when I'm obviously going to lose. I've made my points and will simply hope that a non-retarded wiki editor with more star-power will make the required changes, and remember these moments everytime I see an ad from wikipedia requesting my donations. It may be that I am completely outside some set of rules, and that within those rules you are perfectly correct in your position. My point is that is does not matter, as there are other, more important and transcendent factors that ought to overide whatever "status quo" you are attempting to maintain. What might be useful for me here is some kind of link explaining the difference between "allowed" discussion and that which is "using talk pages as though they are forums to discuss the subject of the talk page", because it seems to me that any editor could define any discussion as being one side or the other for any reason at all, depending on their personal bias, which to my thinking renders the entire notion meaningless, and instead makes it nothing more than an empty means by which to suppress any discussion that does not conform to the bias of those that have the power to censor. How this is reconciled against wiki's "non-censorship" pillar might also be interesting, and finally I could be completely wrong about all of this and a few more years of "seasoning" may lend some clarity.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Hello, I'm Fbifriday. I noticed that you recently removed some content from ApothéCure Inc. 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: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Fbifriday (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor edit"

Removing a template as you did at Edward Snowden with [1] is not a "minor edit". Please do not mark edits like those as minor and try to discuss it on the talk page if removing a template. Thanks for being Bold. Surfer43 (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did remove one of the templates, geography, but not recentism because it still had some current tone in it. Surfer43 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize you posted a notice on the talk page. Still, don't mark it as minor and try to wait for consensus. Surfer43 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Hi, Jonny. I saw your post at User talk:204.193.81.15. We have WP:AGF which asks people to assume good faith. Please try not to accuse people of bad faith motives on the first go - it can make otherwise helpful contributors quit the project, and we don't want that. If a user proves to be unconstructive that's another thing WhisperToMe (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and agree. I tried to balance everything, while making my explanation as brief as possible. I'm not certain of "bad faith", but on the other hand I found no indication of "good faith". If the User provides some evidence that the article has any of the inaccuracies mentioned, I would be glad to work with them to improve the article.Jonny Quick (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome?

Was that intended for my talk page? Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw a blank User page and assumed you were brand-new. Moved to the talk page, despite that I now realize it's unnecessary.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Bad

Yelling and calling things stupid is called incivility and OR, not deliberation. Vince Gilligan himself lays the blame on Walter, but so do other sources. You are formally warned not to violate WP3RR. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling what I stated "yelling" is retarded, as was the User I accused of being retarded. Having the retarded "rubbing elbows" with those not afflicted with their condition is naturally going to result in some friction, and there is no wikipedia rule or policy that can save them (or you) from that friction. You've taken Gilligan's metaphoric and artistic intent and turned it into a literal statement of fact. That's retarded, and so are you. I am incapable of dumbing myself down to your retarded level in order to communicate with you about something you are genetically incapable of understanding. that's not "rude", that's FACT. The fact that you don't like it, or to be told about it does not make me rude, it makes you defensive, as well as retarded. I stand by my diagnosis, and reiterate my belief that you have no business editing Wikipedia in any capacity. The article has been dumbed down by your retarded involvement, and shall remain so unless and until someone else is willing to exert whatever is required to remove your influence from the article.Jonny Quick (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Falun Gong

I have removed myself from all Falun Gong discussions. As such my opinion is irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm Happysailor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from ApothéCure Inc.  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. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to replace current lede with text from "Harm reduction"

You proposed to start rewriting the current lede with replacing the current lede with text from "Harm Reduction".[2] The current lede is a summary of the whole page and not just "Harm Reduction". There already is a summary of "Harm Reduction". See "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear,[15] but in an effort to decrease tobacco related death and disease, they have a potential to be part of the strategy.[16]" See Electronic_cigarette#cite_ref-Cahn2011_16-0. Adding more information from "Harm Reduction" is far too much detail for a summary. QuackGuru (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting this here, and not in the discussion pages of the article itself?Jonny Quick (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shove, assault

Assault has both civil and criminal legal definitions, both rather high-faluting, while shove is simple, and better. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"shove" is only "better" if you ignore the entirety of the context. Perhaps you didn't understand my long post on the context of using violence during the commission of a robbery. And why tell me this outside the article?Jonny Quick (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to ask for that. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay I meant feedback on my reasoning from a previous point, but okay.Jonny Quick (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Snowden

I never edit warred, despite Brian's harping. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]