User talk:Quadrow

Welcome!
Hello, Quadrow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Theresa May. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Muffled Pocketed  12:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed  12:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately the admin who looked into this matter took a more balanced view than User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Quadrow (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You were warned by an admin. If you do not recognise what that means... Muffled Pocketed  11:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * sure User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I recognise what that means and I have accepted the warning. Your agenda was just to get me blocked. I don't think your approach really helped because it felt a bit heavy handed and you really did not recognise my side in matter. It felt a bit like the wiki police were coming to get me for daring to try and make something better but the reality was that I just wasn't properly equipped. Quadrow (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no agenda. Please read WP:AGF. Alright. Muffled Pocketed  11:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi what you could have done was to help me achieve what I wanted to achieve. You should have WP:AGF for me. It feels like everyone is very keen to quote policies to me but not apply them to themselves. What I need is to be equipped and encouraged to contribute constructively (which is what I want) not discouraged with draconian action. I was correctly correcting the addition of a title that had no consensus and no sources to back it up. I fell down by not knowing how to correctly approach enforcing Wiki policy to make sure that a disputed title that had been very recently added without any reference to sources was removed. I got involved because it had misled my wife when she was reading wiki.Quadrow (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a tragic turn of events when such chivalry leads to edit-warring. Muffled Pocketed  11:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * perhaps you don't care for the accuracy of wikipedia. I did.Quadrow (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but there are ways of expressing such concern without edit-warring; you didn't. Muffled Pocketed  11:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is my point. I didn't need an edit warning. I needed to be helped to express such concern.Quadrow (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But you already had, so I don't think you did. Muffled Pocketed  12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that is where we differ. I didn't think I was helped. You could have told me exactly what to do to achieve what I wanted not what I wasn't to do. Quadrow (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You found the talk page: that is exactly what you were meant to do. But having found the TP, you proceeded to continue the edit war. Muffled Pocketed  12:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Yes - but the default position is something that doesn't have consensus or sources doesn't get added. So I removed it as it didn't have consensus or sources and then discussed it so that others could agree or construct an argument to have it added. So it remains un-added until the consensus is reached. To say the default position is that it is added and removed only once there is consensus or supported by sources to remove it is ridiculous. With that reasoning someone could sneak on any ridiculous lie and then block it from being removed claiming no sources support that it isn't a lie and further claim no consensus to remove it by just fillabusting the matter in the talk page. Can't you see that? Quadrow (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please desist from edit-warring your opinion into articles in future. Cheers mate. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So clearly you can't refute that position so you just tell me to not edit-warning myself. Nice get out. We are not mates.Quadrow (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I was merely commenting upon the fact that a content dispute is no reason to edit-war. I know. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well - why is it me singled out when I was holding a discussion? Why were those trying to have it added without discussing not singled out? At the time, my view was that I was undoing disruptive editing and was then victimised by someone who didn't agree with me and knows the rules much better to be able to threaten a block to enforce a position he agreed with. Quadrow (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who? <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * who what?Quadrow (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who was victimising you / threatening you with a block? <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You stated "If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing." I put it to you that you didn't agree with my position. Had you agreed with me you would have warned those adding the title instead of reporting me. You used your better knowledge of the rules to have me warned and have the page as it was instead of getting dodgy content removed.Quadrow (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was Jimmy Wales ;) or whoever wrote the template. See, it's automatic and that is the generic wording, and certainly did not reflect any personal opinion of you. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is unsound reasoning. You can't say it was a template and not me. If you didn't agree with what it was saying why post it on the talk page. You did agree with it. Let's call a spade a spade. You like arguing and you like being right - just like me. That is why you are engaging me in this pointless debate. Quadrow (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was the sentiment of the edit-warring template in the context of your edit-warring that I agreed with, not the exact wording for which there is presumably some on-wiki consensus for? <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you are an Internet Troll. I'm just saying I'm beginning to feel like I am being trolled. Quadrow (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is so unfair; I thought it was an interesting discussion. Although, like Europe, moving gradually to the right ;) <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  14:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly fair to state your own feelings in a debate without accusing. Quadrow (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, your time is up. It'll be £50 for another half hour of arguing.Quadrow (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * you know what - I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye on the matter. It wasn't my intention to break rules. Let's just leave at that shall we? Just know I am going to leave the last comment. This is my talk page. Quadrow (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Do us a favour
Hello. I've closed the discussion mentioned above, with a promise to leave you a warning not to edit the article again today, until things have changed. I fully understand your position, but please leave it to others. As you say, it's only going to be a few hours (and frankly not many are going to notice the inaccuracy). Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, I mean it, please don't repeat this edit. You are already beyond the bright-line rule and have been given plenty of warning. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cameron is about to get in the car. Exchanging a block log for twenty minutes of accuracy is not going to be worth it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience so far - not much longer to go. If it's any consolation, I've been here over ten years and seen this happen every time. You'll have seen all the edits at Theresa May - the same edits are happening in lots of places all over Wikipedia right now, from United Kingdom to First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Samantha Cameron and beyond. It's necessary to some extent to just accept it as inevitable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Damn I thought my diplomacy was actually working for once. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

June 2017
- MrX 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC) - MrX 13:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
When you comment at AE, please do so in your own section even when responding to others. Do not edit the section that starts, "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." GoldenRing (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ta--Quadrow (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your issues with sources
If you have issues with sources, feel free to go to WP:reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok - thanks. Although I don't think all the sources are unreliable in every context. It's just that news sources have inherent bias (also sometimes they occasionally have a bad story that doesn't have proper evidence - if they are a good outlet then someone usually gets sacked for that). It's ok to use them as sources because undoubtedly there are facts that are reliable; however, we should avoid repeating the biased parts. To watch the news or read a paper it takes a certain skill to separate out the facts of the story from the narrative that the media outlet is trying establish. If the facts are supported then you can rely on them, but the narrative may not necessarily be correct and it could be potentially misleading. Let's rely on the facts but ignore the narrative. That is neutral.--Quadrow (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I hope you're not buying into Trump's words about "fake news", are you? Anyway, here is also WP:no original research policy (redirected from WP:primary sources), which says how to and not to interpret primary sources. Hmm... (again) I wonder whether you are suited for Wikiversity, where you can express your original research and your thoughts and whatever. --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There - right there. That is a perfect example of what bias is. This Trump/CNN thing has two sides to it. There are a set of facts and two sets of interpretations of those facts. Wikipedia should not be using the interpretation of one side or the other. Only the facts should be presented as undisputed. And yes - to answer you directly - I do believe that many news organisations are trying to prop up a narrative that sells papers and boasts ratings with very weak evidence and I'm watching this play out through the Comey evidence, the leaks, the undercover tapes of producers at CNN and all the other things. There is most definitely validity to Trumps position but of course no doubt there are two sides to this story. But let me flip that question on you - you haven't fallen for this CNN has complete neutrality and is completely above bias nonsense have you? It seemed to me like we've seen so much blatant bias now that no one could deny it. And finally, "please can we remove 'far right' from the lead and devote a section to it instead" is not original research. --Quadrow (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Quadrow, your comment indicates your disregard toward the consensus. If you are willing to interpret the Breitbart News in your own way, please do so at another project, like either Wikiversity or Wikibooks. Doing so at Wikipedia would violate the "WP:PRIMARY" policy, a redirect to "No original research", if you would interpret Breitbart News broadly. Also, the editor below tells you to disengage from the topic and then move to another venue. If you would like to persist, I won't stop. However, you were admonished for your unproductive edits at Breitbart News, and now you are reluctant to accept the consensus. Continuing this behavior would get you either topic-banned or blocked, as that editor warned you about. Also, your aspersions on the community and me are unhelpful and do not do any good to you. Do you want that to happen to you? --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if you think I've acted improperly then refer me. It's a talk page and I'm engaging with the arguments. I think you will find that I have clearly stated that I would accept the outcome. I don't need to agree with you though. I'm campaigning to remove bias from the article, but if the RFC that I posted was held and concluded that the consensus is for it to be in the lead then I would accept that and move on.
 * But I really can't win here. I was admonished and told that the problem was that I didn't engage with the talk page when reversing an edit, but when I do bring my contributions to the talk page I'm told I'm being disruptive for taking a contrary position. I'm also calling a spade a spade here. There is nothing wrong with individuals having bias. I have bias. But I think the page has turned into an echo chamber - you may not even realise it. I am also not the only person to hold my views as is evidenced by the pages and pages of other people saying similar things to me.--Quadrow (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You know what? Have it your way then. I'm disengaging from you for now. Okay? --George Ho (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing I want is for my RFC to happen. That's all. Once it's happened there is nothing else for me to add. Everyone puts there reason and what they think. Someone else comes in and makes a decision on consensus. It gets closed. And then if I don't drop it I would think there would be validity in calling me disruptive for not accepting consensus. Look at my reasons for calling the RFC - they are very valid reasons. I promise that if the RFC happens I would accept the outcome as consensus. I have nothing against you or anyone else. I respect your right to have a different opinion to me. I think there is no problem in people making a case for something --Quadrow (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm disengaging from you. Almost forgot, please read WP:RFC. Okay? --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That reference is helpful. Although I did engage in discussion before starting and RFC. I also was armed with the opinion of another admin that actually said I could start an RFC, so I don't think I improperly started it.--Quadrow (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed, so catch you around.--Quadrow (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Drop the Stick
Please stop editing Talk:Breitbart News. Your contributions are not constructive. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How is presenting an argument not being constructive? I don't get it. Is it that to be constructive I have to agree with everyone? Just break it down for me please. I am going to refer this matter as soon as I work out how because locking an RFC is definitely not constructive.
 * You just created a user page. You're fairly clearly acting in bad-faith here. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What? How is creating a user page acting in bad faith? I'm not getting it? Back up your allegation. --Quadrow (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin and have no say in the matter, but there are multiple people ready to ban you from this site. Arguing with me won't do you any good. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I wish an admin would talk to me about it or refer me using the proper channels because this feels like bullying to me just because I have a different opinion. But if you are going to accuse me of bad faith then you have to spell it out because I'm not getting it. --Quadrow (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

SPI case
As said before, I'm still disengaging from you. I come here again to inform you about "Sockpuppet investigations/Quadrow". Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Disengaging while still engaging doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Clearly Wikipedia has fallen to the far left echo chamber where everyone and everything is a Nazi and if you disagree then you are being disruptive. Nonsense.--Quadrow (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alerts
—  Newslinger  talk   16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)