Talk:Quinn Norton

message: Quinn Norton's stories about body hacks, IP issues and most recently, her series of articles on the Pirate Bay are influential and often followed up on in more mainstream publications.
She's well-travelled in the internet and hacker world, and has been a guest blogger at Boing Boing.
If that's not enough, then half of the entries in the journalist section of wikipedia should also be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RSnotRSS (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair 'nuff...speedy nom withdrawn. Akradecki 19:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article represents me so poorly, and has for so many years, that I'd prefer if it was just deleted. I can live with not being notable enough for people to maintain a page on wikipedia, I'd just prefer if it was deleted rather than left to represent me worse and worse over time. - Quinn Norton  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.99.30 (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Quinn, thank you for your comment. I don't know you and haven't heard about you before, but I read the article and I don't have any negative impressions actually. However, any article can be improved. Can you indicate what information is incorrect or manipulative so that it represents you worse over time? Also, is there some notable stuff missing from the article?  « Saper // @talk »  20:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Rather than blanking the nreferenced edit, why not take 5 min with google? Plenty of refs. http://nymag.com/news/features/aaron-swartz-2013-2/ MarkBernstein (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex husband 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quinn Norton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120514220448/https://www.cuspconference.com/presenters-2008.php?section=Quinn-Norton to https://www.cuspconference.com/presenters-2008.php?section=Quinn-Norton#presenters-2008.php?section=Quinn-Norton
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070127165713/http://www.wired.com:80/news/technology/0%2C71087-0.html to http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71087-0.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So she's apparently been hired as a New York Times editor, which should be added to the article. There's also been, um, a lot of heat on Twitter about how she's apparently friends with, um, Nazis. Don't know if there's been a write-up on this in a reliable source yet, but if one appears, I think that'd be worth covering, as well. john k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  She's not "friends with Nazis".  *One* of her hacker-sources (a well known guy who became tied to DailyStormer *after* she, and many other people, defended 'him' in writing - she wrote an article about him - this, in the face of an unjust CFAA conviction).  A lot of people defended him, including GWU Law professor Orrin Kerr, who litigated his case against the DOJ.  'He' became involved in Neonazi activities *after* she's interviewed him and *after* she'd announced that he was a friend. Sapphiresblue (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This kind of note on a person's Wikipedia talk page can inspire mobbing.Sapphiresblue (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT hire 

message: I am currently cleaning up and adding content to this article.  -- request that you not crawl all over my edits as I am in the process of reworking the page and making sure that there are adequate citations. I have over 40,000 edits and do BLPs on the regular. I have only the best intentions here. So I don't appreciate being lectured in edit summaries, and would request that you let me work on this for the next couple of hours. I can paste a WiP template on the page but I think it's in basically good shape compared to what it was in before I started cleaning it up, and it might have high traffic due to the newsworthy NYT thing, so I would prefer not to do this templating. Please, I would just like to do this in peace, beg for a few hours here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: BrillLyle, don't be so touchy. It's precisely because of what you call "high traffic due to the newsworthy NYT thing" that I reverted your inclusion of a family member's name, which is private and not relevant to this article. Please continue your cleanup, which is otherwise exemplary. But if you again cross this line, I shall again revert it. KalHolmann (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow. Some feedback for you -- that's not the most Assume Good Faith or even collegial response. Very patronizing, which I don't appreciate. I don't need your permission or judgment of my contributions here, especially since you are a newer editor. Maybe think about civility and kindness when editing, okay? I'm going back to focusing on adding content. Hoping this can be a positive experience. Please. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: Simply put,  is going into an undue amount of detail about Andrew Auernheimer on this page.   in particular is clearly trying to prove a point (that Norton was treated unfairly).  That entire paragraph would be more appropriate on weev's page than here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put it there.  This is relevant to the Norton article, and "secondary sources said so".  Quitcher censorship.
Sapphiresblue (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Norton was, in fact, treated unfairly.  Many other persons - most more prominent than Norton - supported 'Weev' in recent years, without 'Weev's antisocial behavior becoming an issue for them. Secondary sources highlighted this in newspress articles. Why does it bother you that this is noted on Wikipedia` Sapphiresblue (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weev 

message: I removed the unfocused tag User:Pablomartinez added and I reduced the copyedit tag. It previously said "This seems like a random list of everything this person has done. I believe the subject to be notable, but I also feel this is just a list of everything she has done, which may confuse her notability". This was too wordy and put one editor's opinion too prominently on the page - that is what talk pages are for. The description of her career could be more coherent so I left a reduced tag in place.
The unfocused tag does not make sense: this article is entirely about Norton. There is no need to split the article or disambiguate. An article on her hiring and rapid firing from NYT would not be notable under WP:EVENT. I now see the tag was previously removed - per WP:BRD, you need to discuss the issue not edit war to retain the tag. Fences&Windows 08:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for removing the disambiguation: that wasn't a valid tag.  Alternatively, you wrote ". An article on her hiring and rapid firing from NYT would not be notable under WP:EVENT".  I disagree.  Normally someone being hired-and-fired isn't a notably event, but her hiring-and-firing was covered by every top newspaper in the United States and some foreign papers as well.  Today there's a NYT Op-Ed with this hire-fire as top news.  So it's WP:NOTABLE.  It should never have happened, but it did, and it can't be denied.  That being said, the woman is a journalist, and a writer, and she's already started to raise the discourse with an OpEd in The Atlantic.  185.13.106.197 (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit and unfocused tags 

message: A Herndon-VA-based vandal, using iP 65.28.236.17, who has an understanding of Wiki-language removed a sector of the article, claiming they were "editorializing and synthesizing" yesterday.  Sapphiresblue (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the IP, here. Most of the sources cited had nothing to do with Norton specifically, making this WP:SYNTH. Using one source as a thin justification for a bunch of additional content based on personal opinion is unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Again, any sources which do not directly mention Quinn are useless for this, because articles shouldn't WP:SYNTH sources together to imply something not specifically stated. Donald Glover has nothing to do with Quinn Norton unless reliable sources specifically say he does, and only to the extent spelled-out by those sources.  Saying journalists "quickly noted" something, and describing two different lawyers as "famous" (cited to a blog?), the peculiar use of quotation marks... this is all inappropriate WP:EDITORIALIZING, along with other problems. Discuss here before restoring. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism from Virginia 

message: Hi, this is Quinn again. There's some pretty inaccurate stuff here. I was never admitted to nor attended any university, much less two UCs. I snuck into lecture classes occasionally as a teen, but that hardly makes me a student of the university. 
I was a contracted writer at Medium, first for my own collection, and then rolled into a larger Medium magazine called The Message. I wasn't self publishing, they were my primary source of income for more than two years. Also "words referring to gay people were covered by "in-group" referencing" is inaccurate: I said private use is covered by being part of the in-group, but that my use online was strictly restricted to exploring the alternate usages of Anonymous and 4chan in the time that I was covering them. 
Also my friendship with weev was not as a source, but through mutual friends. I only used him as a source in one piece before his trial, and I stated that he was a friend, as well as talked about his racist language at the time. (it would become more virulent later) Nevertheless I denounced his racism publicly and privately before his trial, calling him a terrible person and pointing out white nationalist language in his twitter bio. 
The car accident in 2011 didn't cause anything; I was diagnosed with cervical spinal problems and treated with physical therapy and botox beginning in 2008. The accident in 2011 caused a rash of headaches. (I've recently had three cervical discs removed and replaced with prosthetic discs.) 
None of the article listed, (of which I would agree there are too many, tbh) include my writing on race, which goes back to my unknown blogger days. Some listed at the bottom of this piece, including my popular whiteness series: https://www.quinnnorton.com/said/?p=901 
I can't imagine a six hour twitter kerfluffle about me not knowing what #blackgirlsaremagic was is noteworthy enough to be here, but wikipedia gonna wikipedia. Anyway, I wrote a short bio here: https://www.quinnnorton.com/said/?p=895 It's not particularly exciting, but it's all true.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.0.189.113 (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting new comments at the top of an older section is confusing and almost guarantees they will be overlooked. For simplicity, I have created a new section and moved these per WP:BOTTOMPOST. In the future, please also sign your posts per WP:SIGNATURE. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: COI comments

message: I've seen nothing about her being racist "ranter" and certainly not being "widle known" for it. I've also seen nothing anti-semitic, either. Bigoted? that should directly attributed to a sourced reputable media commnent if it were to be included at all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.93.248 (talk • contribs) 1:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  where are all the cites for these blatant violations of wikipedia rules?