User talk:Quetstar

March 2023
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

''Please start discussing on the talk page rather than arguing through reverts and edit summaries. As the person first implementing change, the WP:BURDEN is on you do start up a discussion and get a WP:CONSENSUS. Sergecross73  msg me  15:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC) ''


 * @Sergecross73 Roger that, thanks. Quetstar (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Riot Games Criticism request
Hello! I'm stopping by to ask about the Criticism and controversies edit request you recently closed on the Riot Games Talk page. You cited the "sensitive nature" of the section as your reasoning. I think I understand what you mean. It's definitely a tricky request. My hope, with the revised section draft I put forward, was that I could:


 * 1) Reorganize the section for clarity without removing the well-sourced existing content, which definitely belongs in the article
 * 2) Add some new information—sourced from strong journalistic outlets like the Washington Post, the LA Times, and Kotaku—on steps the company has taken in an attempt to remedy some of its workplace issues

I'm crucially not trying to rewrite history, or get rid of content that's critical of the company. My goal is to add additional context, based on more recent developments, and make the section a little bit more readable. Would you consider re-opening or reviewing any part of what I proposed? Perhaps just adding some or all of the new information, without reorganizing the section?

Of course, I understand if you simply don't think a COI editor should have a hand in researching and drafting material for a section like this one. In that case, I'll drop the matter and move on. But I thought I would at least ask. Thanks for taking a look at my work in the first place. Take care. JHixson at Riot Games (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation of honeycomb.io
Hi there - would you mind explaining why you reverted my formatting only edits? I do understand the COI policy, and believe that my edits to align lowercase capitalisation of "honeycomb.io" are in keeping with the policy to make non-contentious edits only and there's not a reason to revert them just for being COI edits (obviously, puffery would be a reason to revert, but that's why I don't make substantive edits with meaning changes on articles I have a COI on). Cheers. lizthegrey (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Lizthegrey Wikipedia's Manual of Style requires that company names be capitalised. Exceptions to that are, to my understanding, only made in rare and individual cases, such as eBay. Since the nature of your edits involved making changes normally contrary to the MOS, you should go through the COI request process to see if an exception can be granted. Quetstar (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you, MOS:TMSTYLE was what I was missing. Appreciate the pointer! In that case, it may be better to have the article refer to the company first as "Honeycomb" and then secondarily as "honeycomb.io" to sidestep this problem of sentence casing. I'll submit a COI request to have that change made. Much appreciated. lizthegrey (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Submitted a requested move at Talk:honeycomb.io as discussed. lizthegrey (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You and NEDOCHAN keep being reverted on Lucy Letby without good reason
Hi have you seen what the user on Lucy Letby has done again? Despite there being no clear consensus and four editors including you, I and objecting on talk (Talk:Lucy Letby), Sirfurboy has just reinstated his own version of the lead excluding "serial killer". There is clearly no consensus for his edits (there's actually more editors objecting than supporting) and I think it shouldn't be allowed - but I can't edit the page myself to revert. and can something be done to stop this editor just reinstating his edits despite no consensus on talk? As you say NEDOCHAN, the talk page discussion is definitely not an example of proper consensus. 109.144.211.224 (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Edits reverted. Quetstar (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quetstar, as you have just started editing this page, you won't be aware of the sockpuppet, User:BarehamOliver and the recent history of User:MeltingDistrict, likely the same sockpuppet or else a meat puppet of the same person. As MeltingDistrict, the editor revealed themself to have a deep personal grudge against Richard Gill, and also demonstrated they were following his Twitter feed . After being banned for socking in an RfC to manipulate the outcome (including IP socking), they returned as an IP to continue their vendetta against Gill. Their IP was banned Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141, but it was always clear they had access to some other IPs, and as they are following me around, and this page has a connection with Gill, the sockpuppet's presence is expected.
 * This message on your talk page is the classic MO, therefore, of MeltingDistrict, who has an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. I am sure you don't wish to be manipulated by a sockpuppet. Request that you restore the wording we had revised in talk and that no registered user had raised an actual objection to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)