User talk:Quadell

Previous discussion is archived at User talk:Quadell/archive

Khalid bin Mahfouz

Hi pleased to meet you. Lawyers acting apparently acting for Khalid bin Mahfouz have contacted the site owner Jimbo Wales about possible inaccuracies in the Khalid bin Mahfouz. See User_talk:Jimbo Wales and Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz. Some major newspapers appear to have published retractions about similar material. As you wrote much of the original article, I thought you ought to know, and encourage you to respond to Jimbo's point at that talk page. We need to get the page in a state we are happy with in the light of the lawyers comments as soon as possible. Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 18:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's your e-mail address?

Hi. If you give me your address I will explain what I meant when I opposed your application for admin. Contact me at moriori@hotmail.com. Moriori 03:32, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you, and look forward to your reply. Quadell (talk) 20:14, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I wish you would have explained your opposition. Perhaps it could have been resolved. Quadell (talk) 13:15, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

I thought e-mail discussions remained in e-mail. Am I wrong? Moriori 09:19, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

post-Libertarian

What is a post-Libertarian? I have made a transition from an orthodox Libertarian to a pragmatic libertarian myself, but have never heard of a post-Libertarian. --H. CHENEY 04:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made the term up myself as I was writing my brief bio. I was orthodox Libertarian in the past, and even ran for office as a Libertarian for a local election. I have since then found many situations in which the pragmatic option that seems more Libertarian was actually no more Libertarian than the pragmatic option that seems more socialist. (For example, should we keep parts of Alaska a federally-owned nature preserve and forbid drilling, or should we create a tax-payer-funded pipeline and enforce a local monopoly on the oil extraction in the region? Neither option is truly open-market, and protecting the wilderness trumps drilling for oil, in my view.) I'm not an ex-Libertarian -- I still see issues through a Libertarian perspective -- but my conclusions are almost as likely to disagree with the Libertarian Party's suggestions as they are to agree. Quadell (talk) 15:06, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think the perfect comment was made by Michael Moriarty, the actor, who characterized himself as a libertarian, "but too much of a libertarian to join the party." :) -- Cecropia | Talk 02:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sysop nomination

Hi Quadell, I had to remove your nomination since the time was past and consensus was not reached. I hope you remain interested both in Wikipedia and adminship because I feel your work more than merits it and I also feel you will be shown to have acted appropriately on the disputed article. Cheers! Cecropia | Talk 05:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Consensus" for RfA has been pretty much hashed out to no less than 75% to 80% support. You were a bit under 2/3. The "neutrals" are not counted at all right now, but are informational for other voters and could be advisory in a tight race. With your permission, I will post a new nomination for you in a month's time, and I am comfortable that will succeed. You have dealt with this matter with level-headedness and dignity, which I'm sure will be noted next time around. Keep up the good work! -- Cecropia | Talk 15:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quadell, I have heard from Jimbo on this matter. He is mostly supportive and I want to restore your nomination for the amount of time since the original critical posting (about 3 days). Is this all right with you? Or, if you prefer, I could post it as a new nomination (7 days, votes wiped). -- Cecropia | Talk 15:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow. I'm honored. I don't feel bold enough to venture an opinion on the best way to proceed, but I'll happily accept whatevery action you wish to take. Quadell (talk) 16:30, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thank you for your kind note on my talk page yesterday, Quadell. Changing my vote and apologizing after the matter had been clarified was the least I could do. I'm glad we've resolved that matter, and I hope you win. As things stand now, I expect that you will:-) David Cannon 13:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've switched.

I've changed my vote to support you. Thanks. Neutrality 03:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Administrator

Congratulations! You are now an sysop. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. Warofdreams 16:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now that you're an administrator

Can you do me a favor and delete Sino-Japanese so that I can move Sino-Japanese language there? As far as I know, this should be totally uncontroversial, because Sino-Japanese has pretty much no history. - Nat Krause 06:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's done. Quadell (talk) 14:05, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. - Nat Krause 17:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Islamophobia article

Please help if you can. The user RK keeps vandalising the article by putting his POV in. He has now accused me of being racist and is, I feel, attempting to bully his point of view into being accepted and me off Wikipedia. I have attempted to discuss the issue with him but he keeps reverting and being abusive. I have accepted his idea of Islamophobia being a neologism and included this in the article. Thanks.

John Ball

Daniel Pipes

Hi, just got your note. If you want to unprotect Daniel Pipes, go ahead, but it may need to be protected again. The problem is an extremely tenacious anon editor who persists in trying to turn the page into a hagiography. -- Viajero 22:14, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)