User talk:Qwasty

Welcome!

Hello, Qwasty, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Please do not advertise new, unproven licenses on our article pages (esp. ones with obnoxious clauses). Thank you. You might find Wikipedia is not for advertising of interest. --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by advertising, but just because a piece of information refers to something that is new, unproven, or obnoxious, does not preclude the information from being valuable and relevant. Incidentally, the BSD license is referred to as being obnoxious in the article text, so clearly personal opinions about obnoxiousness haven't mattered thus far. I only posted a link, but the linked to information is relevant enough that it probably deserves a sentence or two in the article text. I just figured I'd leave that to someone else who cares more. --Qwasty 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is referred to as obnoxious in the article only in a quote from the GNU project. And I say it is advertising because when I go google-hunting, I see perhaps three hits in the first two pages that refer to the license itself- and they were added by a "qwasty" or a "zesiger". In short, I don't think this license is at all important or relevant. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only hybrid of the BSD and GPL licenses that I know of, so to me, that makes it relevant. How many hits by how many authors makes a certain topic relevant, to you? Do you have any other criteria for relevance? Sorry I'm teasing you, I think what you meant to say is that you don't think it's significant, and with that I'd be compelled to agree somewhat. However, the article is very short, very tightly focused on the interplay between BSD and GPL licenses, and so a person interested in this very specific article could appreciate all information that's relevant to it. When I added a reference to the Zesiger license in the article, it was small and proportional to its significance. If you feel it should be censored, then I suppose I'll yield to your opinion. Qwasty 01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Mr. T[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Mr. T on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. TheQuandry 03:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Mr. T, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TheQuandry 04:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never vandalized a web page on wikipedia. Qwasty 04:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about jumping the gun. Thanks for the citation about Mr. T's jewlery, it clears some stuff up. One question about it though: in an earlier discussion, someone seemed to think the whole story about him taking necklaces from people he threw out of clubs was bogus. Your reference seems to imply that he actually bought all his jewelry. Maybe we should delete that whole sentence, or rewrite it or something? TheQuandry 04:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've written up some info on my research into the origin of Mr. T's jewelry habits on the talk page. It'll present a more accurate picture of Mr. T once it's all done. Qwasty 05:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Revert Rule[edit]

I feel you have violated the 3 Revert Rule. Please refrain from reverting edits in part or whole (or hidden in other edits). Deon Steyn 16:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for a violation of the 3 Revert Rule, please see WP:AN/3RR. Deon Steyn 07:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverts are handy when you delete large sections of the article text. Qwasty 09:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert violation report closed in my favor[1]. Qwasty 03:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation[edit]

Will you agree to mediation on the article Sniper rifle? Deon Steyn 07:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you vandalized it with mass deletes, we'll take care of that issue first, then discuss things further. Qwasty 09:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you decline to participate in mediation? Deon Steyn 09:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

child pornography examples section[edit]

Frivolous accusations of vandalism won't get you very far. Please review WP:OR. Your comparison of the child pornography standards to the Vietnamese photo is an original analysis, and hence inappropriate to Wikipedia. DanB†DanD 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's akin to saying the russian space shuttle looks like the american one. It's obvious, no research is required. Qwasty 02:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you think it's obvious or not. If it's your own original idea, it's a violation of the OR policy. DanB†DanD 02:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an idea, it's a fact. The features match point-by-point. Qwasty 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line: you can't source the comparison to anyone but yourself. That makes it OR. DanB†DanD 02:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an article says Bruce Springsteen is a musician, and an edit is made that says that Will Smith is a musician too, the fact is that both are musicians, and you don't need to find a source that compares the two since the fact can stand on it's own. Qwasty 02:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this discussion has been moved to the Child pornography talk page Qwasty 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --TeaDrinker 03:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section is being blanked. Qwasty 03:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the {{test2a}} template is generally only used for warning vandalism. Neither my edit, nor the edits of User:DanB DanD qualify, as they are regarding a content dispute. Section blankings are not a priori vandalism. I have reverted the section back. Please discuss the matter on the article talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't become a content dispute until someone starts disputing. The tags were placed before anyone said anything about exactly why they were blanking an entire section of the article. Qwasty 04:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You've passed the Three Revert limit. I suggest you stop. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have now been blocked for 24 hours. You were repeatedly warned about the 3RR rule, but you have far exceeded it. Disagreements are not vandalism, and therefore your reversions do not qualify as vandalism reversions. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no disagreement, useful and specific dialog is absent. Qwasty 04:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod warning[edit]

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Napoleon's Holocaust, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Napoleon's Holocaust. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Batmanand | Talk 14:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child pornography[edit]

Howdy, I wanted to let you know I did revert the examples section you re-added to the examples section in the Child pornography article. I was surprised by your edit summary: "no reason given for the revert on the talk page," since I read many people on the talk page giving what I find to be compelling reasons to not include it. What kind of reasons were you looking for? --TeaDrinker 07:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A policy reason would serve your purpose better. However, I am certain there are none:

NPOV was stated, but no reasons given, and it was never mentioned again
Original research was stated, reasons given, and each reason given was not actually present and was refuted
You did give a reason for your revert, which I noted, that essentially the section did not have popular support. This is a new area to be explored, but it carries no weight in the policies.

This conversation has been moved to the child pornography talk page (originally on my talk page).

Qwasty 14:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False warnings[edit]

Please do not use the warning templates for instances which are demonstrably content disputes, not vandalism. --TeaDrinker 20:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is being blanked, not just the disputed content. That's vandalism. Qwasty 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a section is best removed; and extensively discussed change is certainly not vandalism, even if it involves removing a section. Mis-using the warning templates can be misleading. Incidentally, I am looking at going for some kind of dispute resolution option. What would you think about a request for comment? Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are concerned with only the last half of the section. There has been no discussion about removing the entire section. Let's mediate. Qwasty 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New message[edit]

Check the talk page at Medical uses of silver Alatari (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the notice. Qwasty (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Articles have talkpages for a reason. Why am I explaining my rationale in detail if you just keep reverting without as much as acknowledging that a case has been made? This isn't the way things work. --dab (𒁳) 22:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I moved your above message to its own section. It was previously lost in the middle of my talk page, in a thread that doesn't seem to be whatever it is you're talking about. Qwasty (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your contributions to witch-hunt are completely confused, and actually surreal. Please make a minimal effort to read the article and get a basic grasp of the topic before revert-warring.

From your talkpage, I gather this is no isolated incident. It does appear that you seriously need to reconsider your attitude of plunging into controversies without sufficient understanding of the issue. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vague hostility such as that is absolutely unproductive. Qwasty (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean "vague hostility"? I am asking you civilly to stop misbehaving like that. Please take the hint. If you want to make a case, make it, coherently and based on quotable references. --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ishdarian|lol^wut 08:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as I was just going to tell you, I have presented your antics at WP:ANI for wider input. Your practice of issuing vandalism warnings, even "final warnings", to bona fide users who have fully explained the rationale for their edit, as you did on numerous occasions[2][3][4][5][6][7][8], is not acceptable.

it would be easiest if you could just muster some insight and reconsider your approach, but you can take my word for it that Wikipedia is well prepared to deal with this even if you cannot. --dab (𒁳) 09:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have again cried "vandalism", in spite of repeatedly having been asked to stop this; ironically you alsk asked for an "explanation" (read the talkpage). At this point, as an admin, I would just issue a short block to enforce a minimum of proper behaviour. Since I am obviously "involved", I will forgo this, but I will certainly seek third party administrative action if this puerile nonsense should continue. --dab (𒁳) 15:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a preemptively abusive loose cannon bent on destroying hundreds of legitimate edits. Your smear tactics and reminders of your power over me does cause me to admire your leadership, nor does it endear to my volunteerism. I have nothing more to say to you unless you want to relax and discuss specifics in a civilized manner. Qwasty (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the "specifics" is that you drop unsigned warnings for "vandalism" on the talkpages of bona fide users. This is unacceptable, and I am hereby asking you to stop doing this sort of thing now. This user conduct warning is all I have to say to you, as your "contributions" to article space do not really call for comment, and I will not in the future honour them with edit summaries when reverting. --dab (𒁳) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Witch-hunt. 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. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Huon (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to this page to apply the same warning. Good lord man, stop it. There are three other editors telling you they don't think your changes are good, either via reverting or talk page posting. You say you want substantive discussion on the talk page, then go to the talk page and stop edit warring. You don't have consensus, you don't even have support - do you realize if you revert one more time you will be blocked for 3RR violations? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Witch-hunt. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Qwasty (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been undoing reckless mass reverts of hundreds of edits by Dbachmann that affect most of the sections in the article. They seem to be opposed to me personally, but the mass reverts I am undoing are indiscriminately affecting numerous edits done by approved bots and other users. My attempts to persuade him and his friends to engage in a productive discussion have been unsuccessful to this point, and I have continued to undo the persistent destruction of progress on the article. What little communication I have received from Dbachmann has been provocative in nature. As far as I know, I am the only party who is not an admin.

Decline reason:

There seems to be quite a bit of communication on the article's talk page, it just appears you disagree with it. I don't see but one admin involved, but I fail to see his use of the tools in the dispute; perhaps you could point that out? This is just a standard revert war; I would strongly suggest limiting your edits to the talk page discussion when your block expires. Kuru (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the record, I'm not an admin either, and as far as I can tell, neither are User:WLU, who also reverted Qwasty, or User:Joost 99, who indicated his preference of Dbachmann's version (modified by myself) on the talk page. Also for the record, I'm not a "friend" of Dbachmann; I just believe that his preferred version of the article is a better starting point for further improvements of the article than Qwasty's. The reasons have been explained on the talk page at length, with Qwasty not really participating in the discussion except for insisting that his version should be the starting point for any improvement, no matter what other editors may think. Huon (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I insisted no such thing. No "starting point" discussion occurred, and no specific discussion of any single topic occurred. Qwasty (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I read this edit. You reverted the article to your preferred version, but didn't address any issues, and hoped that now that a discussion had begun you wouldn't "have to revert" back to your preferred version again. If you don't insist on your preferred version as the basis of discussion, why did you revert instead of joining the discussion?

Dbachman, WLU and myself have explained why we're unhappy with your preferred version here, here, here, here, and here. Dbachmann explained his reasoning in greater detail here, back in July. The closest you ever came to addressing these issues was your reply here. Those were some rather dubious claims (and unfounded accusations of censorship), and you didn't give any sources, claiming that you were in the process of adding them - if only you didn't have to revert back to your preferred version. WLU and myself replied within five minutes. That was yesterday, and since then you've neither addressed the issues nor added any sources, but just reverted another two times. Accusing Dbachmann, WLU and myself of not joining a discussion on the talk page is especially hypocritical when your contributions to the talk page have almost completely consisted of unfounded accusations of vandalism (as you've been told by various otherwise uninvolved editors) and my personal favorite, this little gem where you explicitly state that you won't join a discussion of one of the issues (despite reverting the editor who tried to engage in a discussion, and not just Dbachmann) until something else is settled, which you don't try to settle at all. In summary, you actually seem interested in having the talk page discussion going nowhere while at the same time reverting to your preferred version. Huon (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin either. If you find that no-one else will assume good faith, it's possible that the problem may be not with everyone else (who have considerably more edits than you and thus more experience) but with you. I also have no prior relationship with Dbachmann, but I've lots of experience with people who think their version is the truth and therefore they get to ignore the consensus-building process and just implement their preferred version. That doesn't fly, you get blocked like you are now. I know, I've been blocked before for this very reason, but I learned from it. The talk page isn't for you to waste other people's time while we all wonder at your preferred version. It is for you to justify your edits and try to convince other editors it is superior based on sources, policies and guidelines. Seriously, you don't get to "win" because you really, really, REALLY want it. You have to convince others. If you don't convince us but continue to revert, you'll continue to be blocked until it is essentially permanent. Your choice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version you allege is "my" preferred version is the one that has the undue weight tags added by Dbachmann. They never got discussed. When I asked for an explanation of the tags, he reverted the entire article to a time far prior to his adding the tags, taking the tags, the sections, and hundreds of edits along with it. Discussion has been consistently confrontational, without focus, and derailed. In the end, it has come to this, three against one, with nothing productive achieved. Of course, what motivation do any of you three have to put some effort into discussion when democracy is on your side? It's so much easier to just draw lines, argue about where the line is, and then vote to banish everyone on the other side. Waste of time indeed. Qwasty (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann explains why he feels that those sections give undue weight to some ideas in these edits, and clarifies a little later when asked to do so by WLU. He and WLU disagreed about whether the McMartin trial constituted a "real" witch-hunt, but somehow they didn't desced to an edit-war. You also keep saying that Dbachmann "reverted the entire article to a time far prior to his adding the tags". I don't think that's actually the case. Could you please provide a diff for his first reversal to that far prior state, including what earlier state he reverted to? Finally, I still haven't seen you explain why you object to Dbachmann's version. Even if he undid "hundreds of edits" (which I don't think he did), who cares if it resulted in a better article? Since everybody but you seems to like his basic approach, how about trying to explain what you consider inferior to your version? Huon (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Dbachmann edit is in a section about the UK, which didn't even have any mention of SRA. I won't try to reason with people who can't even stay focused on one topic. The article is a mess, and not my problem anymore. The commons score another tragedy. Qwasty (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a real tragedy when no one else will assume good faith. Look - the fact that you've been reverted means you need to discuss and if there are multiple topics you need to discuss them all - by pointing to a single revert involving multiple sections you aren't making it clear exactly what specific change is objectionable. Obviously you aren't doing a good job of explaining your points, or you're unconvincing, and you are still failing to provide any of the necessary sources. Am I being unclear on the latter point? Any support I may provide to your edits is contingent on the sources you would use. I've said this repeatedly and still you're complaining rather than assembling them for review or drafting a possible section. You've got multiple editors giving you the same advice and you're still just turning this into an excuse to complain about your persecution. If you want to feel persecuted, fine, but don't expect your edits to stand for long. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, perfectly clear. It's your article, no complaining here. Qwasty (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's NOT my point at all. My point is that you need to substantiate your edits with reliable sources and discussion. You aren't selected for special attention in this matter - everyone faces the same restrictions. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to either do so or grasp this point is frustrating. It's a very simple issue - do you have any sources to verify the text you wish to add? If so, what are the sources, and what text will they verify? I'm quite clearly leaving the door open to any changes you may have - but I need to know what the sources and text is before giving an opinion. You will be automatically unblocked in a couple hours, at which point you may edit again. If you are going to edit witch-hunt, it's unlikely to go well unless you are more responsive to the input of other editors. This is in your control - you can persist in feeling persecuted and thus perpetuate the problem, or you can state as simply and clearly as possible the specific edits you want to make and the sources they are based on. Right now I have no idea what changes you want to make. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no issue, no edit, no opinion, no attention, no restrictions, no frustration, no perpetuation, no blocking, no statement, no changes, no persecution, no point, no nothing. It's your article. Am I being clear? Qwasty (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you're seeing ownership where I see disagreement over weight issues and editorial judgement. But whatever, if you're not going to edit the page because of a perceived cabal against you the point is moot. You may be interested in seeing my opinion, expressed in these edits and talk page postings. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can have whatever opinion you want. I won't be drawn into a confrontation again. Qwasty (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever? That'll be quite the feat on wikipedia. The issues discussed here should apply nearly everywhere on wikipedia - sources, consensus, discussion, edit warring. If you consistently adopt the same approach, you'll see it again and again and face escalating blocks. But as you like. Naturally you don't have to take my advice, but I do like to think I know what I'm doing, that I've at least a basic grasp of the policies and guidelines, and that I've seen this before. Good luck on your goal of 100% conflict-free editing. As far as I can tell, it's pretty endemic 'round here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chinese lunar coins for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chinese lunar coins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese lunar coins until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]