Talk:David Quinn (actor)/Archive 1

message: This might end up on Lamest edit wars ever, because neither of us seems to want to give in.  I like the way with 2 main sections, why do you insist in the 3 bio sections? ChessManXI 07:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamest Revert War 

message: Now that you drew my attention to this article, the Actor bio section uses way, way too much passive voice
please clean up fragments like "His work has been nominated..."
to specify who did the nominating, when they did it and cite sources, so an average reader can easily verify the information.
Thanx.
TheRingess 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't work.  Every time I edit it, Godmann TeenAngst or one of his/her sockpuppets just reverts it.  Some living encyclopedia....
;Agree.  His minions are numerous.  Tony Kim at MIT has likely written a program.
;)  Hey Ring-gal.  Quit while you are behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nublet (talk • contribs) awhile ago
;To anyone who wishes to know, KillChessCookie 71.197.148.37 Godmann TeenAngst are the ones reverting this article
Bright one, paduwan.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) 00:39, February 14, 2006 PST
How old are you? 10? 11? ChessManXI 08:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Voice in Actor Bio section 

message: BTW, all pettiness aside, this article borders on a copyright violation of material found on the pinpoint website.
TheRingess 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copyright Violations 

message: What awards was he nominated for?  When?  
Which emmy did he win?  When?  For what?
I have removed the line about his awards until someone can name the specific awards, cite sources and give dates.
TheRingess 09:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: As the material stands now it seems to me
*there is nothing objectionable
*the article includes mostly statements that can be verified, with 1 request for a citation
What is so objectionable about the article as it is now?
TheRingess 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: **YOU** didn't write it.  He did. Just give the guy some control over his own life - -like that 10 year old ridiculous photo --  and we'll all go to bed.  I'm due to be off in the next 15 minutes.  Like I said: 60 students are lined up tonight.
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
You didn't answer my question.  What is your objection to the material?
Please assume good faith, I merely edited the article to provide references for material in it.
I removed material that I could not easily find references for.
TheRingess 10:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we all just calm down 

message: Again, are you David Quinn?  Good faith is found in a man who gets kids into MIT, Columbia, Harvard...and then pays for some of them.  Like I said, you picked the wrong entry to fight over.  When he wakes up and calls the lawyers, that Kennedy assassination Wiki is going to look petty compared to what he's going to do.  Lady!  He founded like the second web company!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EW-Warrior (talk • contribs) .
Why do you assume that my edits are some sort of attack.
Please read guidelines on verifiability and citing sources
TheRingess 10:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, dear Ringess, YOU are NOT David Quinn.  Don't tell the man what his bio is.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by EW-Warrior (talk • contribs) .
Once more you mischaracterized my edits.
Any mention of an award should include at least:
*a date
*a category
*an organization
*a link to a website in the references section
I could find nothing about his emmy, I see that the show won an emmy, but found no info on his on there.
TheRingess 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GOOD FAITH??

message: why would David Quinn have an article on wikipedia, and have you guys revert it?  I totally defeats the purpose of wikipedia.  If he wants to be on the internet, he should get a blog.  If he wants to remain unknown, this article should be deleted, but you can't just revert it whenever someone tries to fix the organiztion of the article or adds references or removes unvalidated material. 71.112.203.13 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "business partners and/or reporters actually LOOK at this site." Please leave it alone for him. He does use it. And I don't know why I'm back on Wikipedia, adding comments when Mr. Quinn told me to stay off of it. --67.183.56.51 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, he should get a personal website for that use.  Wikipedia is designed to be like an encyclopedia, not a personal advertisement. Sonic3KMaster 15:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, so that's why he liked the 3 bio sections like before, because reporter/business parters can see his 3-point plan.  How lame, he needs a blog.  I suggest Blogger.com.  Huzzah! ChessManXI 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Just left his class. He didn't write the entry in the first place.  One of his idiot students did.  Once it was there, however, he went in and corrected it.  No "3 point" plan.  And he has his own website.  If it were up to him, this article would be deleted FOREVER. {unsigned|168.99.166.79|18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this article should be put up for deletion because of so many reverts, and one group of people refusing to let the article be edited. 168.99.166.20 22:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I still don't understand 

message: I have protected this aritcle due to a large edit war. Protection will probably last for one week. --Commander Keane 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eek, that's a long time, especially considering the typos on the article :D ChessManXI 15:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Commander Keane. --67.183.56.51 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is protected 

message: I would put this article up for deletion, but I do not know if it falls under the criteria of a notible person because I do not know Mr. Quinn and the information on the article is questionable.  Could someone who knows David Quinn please go Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People still alive and decide if this article needs to stay on wikipedia? 168.99.166.20 22:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Firstly, I think that any teacher that inspires such loyalty in his students, must be a pretty good guy.
Secondly, for my part, looking back at the minor edit war that went on, I could have done a better job of explaining the minor edits I made and made my requests clearer.
As per notability, probably anyone who has won a Peabody Award is notable enough for Wikipedia.
However, there is nothing to say that any person who is notable enough must have an entry.
What I suggest is that when the 7 day protection period ends, is that we nominate the article for deletion.
The process is documented somewhere, I don't have the link handy.
But what it means is that the article's status is put to a vote.  Any interested party can vote to either delete or keep the article, and discuss their reasoning.  I emphasize the word "discuss", because a nomination does not guarantee that it will be deleted.  At the end of the discussion period the votes are tallied and a sysop decides that either the article survives and stays or it is deleted.
Any editor, even an anonymous editor can vote, and the vote is completely democratic, with no person's vote counting more than any other person's (even David can vote, though his say counts no more than anyone elses).
I suggest that we put it through the process.
If enough vote to delete it, then perhaps we can persuade a sysop to delete it with a block to protect it from being recreated.
If enough vote to keep, then I suggest that we all sit down and have a cup of tea together and hash out the direction the article needs to go (keeping in mind Wikipedia's style guidelines and guidelines regarding verifiability).  It's just my personal opinion that this is a much more civilized and mature process than simply reverting each other's edits.
At the very least, nominating it could result in a lively discussion.
Oh btw, please remember to sign comments on talk pages with ~~~~
TheRingess 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 1 Cent 

message: I'm still not sure about the real identity of ChessAndCookies.  After a private talk with him, he claims to know a lot about perception and other things I do not know, suggesting he's a senior at EW? Clearly, he's most likely a student but I still don't know who he is. And unfortunately, how do I know what he says is reliable? What if he really does go to MDHS? Or yet, LHS or MTHS? I'm pretty sure I do not know him.
I'm sorry for adding a section about ChessAndCookies in this discussion, but I just wanted to see if anyone recognizes him. I know he is now gone (as well as abandoning his e-mail account), but it is unfortunate that I will never learn who this this guy was. What he did these past few days was not funny and I hope no one in the future will do such things to me again. (Michael Lam) --67.183.56.51 09:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ChessAndCookies