User talk:QuantumZazzy

January 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No. QuantumZazzy (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also important to note that fmoviesz.to & similar site vidsrc.to are both down currently. Which would be relevant to add to the document if it means these links are now defunct.
 * Tue, Jan 16, 2024 @ 4:42pm ET QuantumZazzy (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FMovies. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * So you can freely edit what I post but will refrain from following rules yourself? You are deleting links to the landing page of a website. It's relevant to have linked for obvious reasons as it's THE URL of the website being discussed. You realize that these links aren't against any rules, The Pirate Bay Wikipedia page has had it's main website linked for years & nothing has come of it. You are the one who needs to refrain from vandalizing this article.
 * I've made genuine edits also about recent events with what I'd contributed in my findings from September 2023 to December 2023.
 * Stop. The. Vandalism. QuantumZazzy (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a blatant violation of WP:COPYLINKS. The Pirate Bay is different in many significant ways. As I've already told you, you can take it to a noticeboard such as WP:ELN for more opinions. But edit warring against plain reading of policy is disruptive. Making personal attacks and accusing me of vandalism is not going to help you get your way on this. MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I decided to raise it at WP:ANI instead. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. I absolutely was edit warring, so I will take accountability for that. But I have seen your edits to FMovies & other pages, you frequent articles on piracy, & I feel you do so in a way that bars people from receiving important information. On the FMovies website in particular people in the past have linked to fake websites, not to mention FMovies has so many fake sites that even including it may cause someone to go to a fraudulent fake website. So if I may say, if we can't include the actual link, despite me believing it should be allowed, shouldn't the whole article just be removed in its entirety? QuantumZazzy (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will defend the right for others to be properly educated regardless of your attacks on information that is absolutely in the right for those to learn if they choose too. And similar to The Pirate Bay which has one, the FMovies also has a landing page that hosts no copyrighted content in itself. You may choose to go back & forth but I will be adamant on my decision. Quit sending me messages as the only one being disruptive is you. Censorship of a landing page is ridiculous. These two situations are incredibly similar. Also for the record, you can find screenshots of what are hosted in the torrents on The Pirate Bay. Which still constitutes to copyrighted material. So furthermore making the two unique in design but regardless both having homepages hosting no illegal content. QuantumZazzy (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Fmovies and COPYLINKS. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to just remove the entire article until the website is defunct? If you go to the 123Movies Wikipedia page you'll see that the documentation of URLs are very prevalent. Since FMovies is practically a sister site to 123Movies with how it's been able to avoid takedowns like 123Movies had a long with how it operates, shouldn't we prevent people from accessing an article about this website until it's defunct? If copyright is such a worry that we can't include basic information such as the main URL. Especially when with piracy many fake links are present & could harm the average onlooker. QuantumZazzy (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that's not a valid reason for deletion. We should not be concerned about helping users find the correct website to pirate movies from - that is well outside the scope of what the encyclopedia is for. MrOllie (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it not? If we aren’t comfortable enough of including necessary information like the real URL to the site, why have a page about it at all? It’s relevant.
 * The other individual who ended up taking away my editor privileges also said the same, and for the record I hope you realize I will be wanting to edit the page again after my temporary ban. So I will bring this discussion up with those whom are of a higher authority to handle this.
 * I feel it’s inappropriate to have an article on a webpage that doesn’t include proper necessary information such as the real URL, especially of a site with many fakes. If it’s present on the 123Movies article with all of the URL changes that site had, then it should be present on the FMovies one for the same reasons.
 * Regardless of the legality & the rules of Wikipedia, that information is important because it holds significant relevance to the article. There is a reason a flag exists to mark the URL of a website in the first place. If the site in question exists too much in a grey area then it’s appropriate to discuss whether it should have an active article on Wikipedia at all at least until it’s defunct. QuantumZazzy (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me make this simple for you. If you edit that page again to add the URL in, without getting clear consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked for editing against WP:CONSENSUS and edit warring. I have no issues with it being added if consensus is reached on the talk page, but you must get this consensus first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the legality & the rules of Wikipedia, that information is important because it holds significant relevance to the article. There is a reason a flag exists to mark the URL of a website in the first place. If the site in question exists too much in a grey area then it’s appropriate to discuss whether it should have an active article on Wikipedia at all at least until it’s defunct. QuantumZazzy (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me make this simple for you. If you edit that page again to add the URL in, without getting clear consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked for editing against WP:CONSENSUS and edit warring. I have no issues with it being added if consensus is reached on the talk page, but you must get this consensus first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me make this simple for you. If you edit that page again to add the URL in, without getting clear consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked for editing against WP:CONSENSUS and edit warring. I have no issues with it being added if consensus is reached on the talk page, but you must get this consensus first. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Canterbury Tail talk</i> 20:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Additionally you are trying to add information to a page. If you try and add it, and it's removed, the Wp:ONUS is on you to WP:COLLABORATE and take it to the article talk page in order to obtain WP:CONSENSUS to have the edit in. Reverting the removal and continually trying to push through the content you want is called edit warring and is not tolerated on Wikipedia as it is disruptive. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So this is how MrOllie unfairly bars people from receiving proper information. I will respectfully go through the proper process as I don't at all appreciate MrOllie's censorship of information not in violation of any rules. QuantumZazzy (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, no matter how I feel about the situation, I'll take accountability for my aggressive stance on trying to include information. I obviously was in violation of the edit warring rule. I'm more new to Wikipedia & don't wish to cause disruptions. But MrOllie is unfairly blocking the homepage of a site, and even information regarding the importance of how the webpage went through a complete URL change. If I may say, if the website is that potentially risky to have, why not remove it entirely? If you look at some past edits, people have put incorrect links to websites in it's place so I felt I'd once & for all stop that. QuantumZazzy (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you add information to a page and someone removes it, you have to get consensus on the talk page to include your edit if someone removes it. End of story. You are the one who wishes to add it, as a result you need to get consensus on the talk page for the inclusion. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I understand. That does make more sense that way since I'm the one initially changing something. How would I go about coming to a consensus to keep the portion of information & hyperlink for some of my edits, not just the link to FMovies?
 * I just want to keep this (of course with the appropriate fixes to any errors):
 * In September 2023, FMovies was placed under maintenance & had underwent a URL change. QuantumZazzy (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In September 2023, FMovies was placed under maintenance & had underwent a URL change. QuantumZazzy (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)