User talk:Quinacrine

Welcome!

Hello, Quinacrine, 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 talk 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! TMCk (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

August 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to North Korea. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I've opened a thread on Talk:North Korea#Outstanding videos about North Korea about this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to North Korea. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are talking about! THESE VIDEOS ARE ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING!!! If you have never lived in North Korea, you cannot understand what is going on there unless you see those videos. Please stop deleting my links.Quinacrine (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems you have no idea what you are talking about. Wikipedia is not a website promotion board. I couldn't care less if these are Oscar-winning videos. You will not be allowed to keep adding the links because they DO NOT comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Green Giant (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Promotion about what? These videos are in perfect agreement with the Wikipedia guidelines. Can you cite any rule that they violate? Quinacrine (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to North Korea, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Green Giant (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WHY DON’T YOU SEE THE VIDEOS BEFORE JUDGING THEM? The article about North Korea, in its present form, is a joke, because it gives no hint about the extreme violations of human rights there.

Actually I took a look the first time I came across them. I DID NOT like the upfront advert which pops up when you click on the documentaryheaven video. Do you have even the slightest understanding of the words "Copyright Infringement"? The videos are quite clearly stolen from somewhere else and my guess is YOU (Quinacrine) uploaded them to documentaryheaven.com and google.com and you are now looking for someone to say "Oh wow" and "Gee whiz" and pat you on the back. Well it isn't going to happen here kiddo. Either grow up and read our policies or go elsewhere to promote your "OUTSTANDING" links.

You have no proof that they were stolen, and I have not uploaded them. In civilized countries there is a rule that everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. I care about this topic because I spent half of my life in communist Poland. The existing article about North Korea is a joke because it does not give any hint about the brutal nature of the North Korean regime. It is not possible to convey the terrifying truth in words, but the videos tell the truth.Quinacrine (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK since you seem to be struggling with our policies, I will lay it out simply. You say the videos are not stolen. Then explain to me why:

• at the end of the "Inside North Korea" video on documentaryheaven.com it says: "A Pangloss Films Production for National Geographic Television and Film. © 2006 NGHT, INC. All Rights Reserved."

• Are either you or the uploader a representative of either Pangloss or National Geographic? Point out for me, where does it say that either Pangloss or National Geographic have given their explicit permission for documentaryheaven.com or the video uploader to put that video there or any other site?

• at the end of the orphans video, it says: "© Channel Four Television Corporation MM"

• Are either you or the uploader a representative of Channel 4? Point out where it says on that page or anywhere else that Channel 4 have given permission for google.com or the uploader to put that video on google?

Both videos are copyright and belong to the respective National Geographic/Pangloss/Channel 4. They do not belong to whoever put them on google.com or documentaryheaven.com and they don't belong to you. Therefore they are stolen videos and the links are not fit to be included on Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A moment ago, in Talk:North Korea you claimed that the videos must be rejected because they represent "unverifiable research." Now that you have learned who made the videos, you claim that they violate copyright. We do not know if they violate copyright. My main point is that these videos are precious because words alone cannot describe what is going on in North Korea. If the videos violate copyright, we should persuade their makers to lift the copyright. I urge you one more time to see the videos. Quinacrine (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Both issues are linked. The "unverifiable research" is your action in adding links to pages that do not fulfill legal obligations such as respecting copyright. Read my statement above one more time. There is absolutely no question that a copyright violation is taking place. However, we are under no obligation whatsoever to ask the makers to lift copyright. The only obligation is for those websites or the uploader(s) to remove the videos immediately. Green Giant (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not have the vaguest idea if posting these videos on the Internet violates copyright laws. The only way to find out is to ask the makers of the videos. If the makers of those videos claim that posting them on the Internet violates their copyright laws, we have moral duty to explain to them that their greed deserves less respect than human rights of the North Korean people. This is not academic debate about copyright, but a moral struggle to save the lives of millions of people. We have moral obligation to tell the truth in order to save their lives. Have you watched these videos yet? Do you give a damn about the North Korean people? Do you have any human feelings? Quinacrine (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North Korea. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we talk about facts? Why don't you see the videos before judging them? I feel like I am trying to tell the truth about Nazi concentration camps, and you are trying to find excuses to hide the truth. Quinacrine (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Unite Against Fascism. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

November 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for repeatedly making grossly inappropriate edits like this. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

Your addition to Peace in Islamic philosophy has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you even trying? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing this website, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Quinacrine! I suggest you stop reverting your edit to for now. In my assessment you are right and they are wrong. Let's take the time necessary to sort this out calmly. See discussion at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Consensus to remove user's post from article talk page that violates WP:TPO. __meco (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to your comments, I added a clearer indication that Carlos the Jackal is indeed regarded as a terrorist near the top of the article; there's no reason I know of for Wikipedia to be avoiding that. Please do _not_ give in to frustration about one article or another looking "biased toward Muslims" by making ill-advised edits to a different one. The sort of people who take that stuff out are fanatic believers in a Wikipedia policy of recent prominence called WP:BLP, which in their interpretation is a call to take out even the best-known and most obvious facts about living people if they simply look bad. That's not a Muslim thing, it's a deletionist thing. And I don't agree with it. Wnt (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone actually did revert me, with all too typical request for discussion without the actual discussion. [1] If you want to complain about this article, that's the place to be doing it though, not on Breivik's page and so forth. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We are wasting time. Wikipedia will always be the propaganda tool of far-left fanatics. Wikiislam ( http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page ) is a better place to contribute our knowledge about Islam. Quinacrine (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone erased all posts under Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Consensus to remove user's post from article talk page that violates WP:TPO. Quinacrine (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Those posts aren't erased, they're under a "hatnote" to hide them unless you click "show" (though since I'm not generally allowing scripts, it shows up for me be default). That's a compromise position between deleting and not deleting, and given that the thread is of tenuous relevance to improving the article, I don't have a problem with that. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Haiti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Unite Against Fascism. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — Richard BB 18:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Islamophobia

Post to a talk page like that again and I'll block you - I see you've been blocked before for something similar. You should know better. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent political soapboxing and hate speech. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)