User talk:Qwirkle/Archive 5

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Roi-des-Belges. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. ''Both you and have been warring over this page for some time. Please do not edit the article any further without discussing at the talk page'' — HTGS (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2021 (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.


 * As a casual glance will show,, I already have noted some of the problems with the article on the talk page… …unanswered, of course. Any equally casual glance at the article will show that the version I am reverting is… …well, if you think that belongs in mainspace, there is little point in continuing this conversation. Be seeing you at ANI, by the look of it. Qwirkle (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand and I don't disagree. But you have to admit that your current approach is not working. There are ways to resolve this before ANI, and I strongly suspect you will come out looking lesser the fool with third party intervention, but simply continuing to edit war still makes you look like a fool. — HTGS (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I disagree, but that’s what makes horse races. Qwirkle (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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. — HTGS (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

…which, as I’ve already mentioned, belongs rather at ANI. Qwirkle (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Roi-des-Belges
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not the result I would have hoped for, obviously; I had thought the quality of those versions was so low that removing them was little different from removing conscious vandalism. Qwirkle (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving
Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. I've also moved a lot of archived sections from /Archive 1 to /Archive 4, where they should've been. --rchard2scout (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks, . I was still playing around with it; is it my imagination, or do some of these things substitute for you, but others require you to do the substitution? That was a bit of a liberty, though, don’t you think? Next time, it might be be better to ask the page owner first. Qwirkle (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: talk page archiving
Yes, I might've taken a bit too much liberty with your talk page. I had been dealing with many of them (most of which required simpler fixes, and many belonging to no longer active editors). I should've discussed in your case, and I apologize. I hope you're happy with the end result anyway. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, no harm, no foul. I have one foot out the door here, and I’ve been messing around with autoarchiving whatever comes in. Thanks for your help. Qwirkle (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southgate–Lewis House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sheathing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

- - - - - Hello User:Qwirkle, Are you there? Your user page states that you are no longer active on Wikipedia. Well. . . I certainly know this is not the case. I would like to thank you for the time and careful attention you have devoted to the Southgate-Lewis House entry. As I now state on my User:DGAAustin page: It is my sincere hope that, with the assistance of knowledgeable Wikipedia Editors, we can resolve the problems described in the “4 maintenance templates” so that this Wikipedia article will live up to the high standards of Wikipedia. It is my earnest hope that this entry concerning the Southgate-Lewis House will soon be excellent – a paragon of excellence. Below I will post a copy of what now appears on my user page. My best regards, DGAAustin DGAAustin (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC) - - - - - Hello,

I am DGAAustin.

I am Duane G. Albrecht and I live in Austin Texas.

I am a professor emeritus at The University of Texas at Austin.

I was born, raised, and educated in Berkeley, California. I spent my first 30 years in Berkeley and my next 40 years in Austin, Texas. My Ph.D. was obtained at The University of California at Berkeley.

I have contributed one and only one thing to Wikipedia: The Southgate-Lewis House entry.

I have tried to communicate all that I know about the Southgate-Lewis House – as accurately as possible. (I actually have a few more things to say.) I am the professor that found the condemned house that was scheduled for demolition, organized the historic preservation, lived there for some long time, and presented the Southgate-Lewis house (as a gift – free and clear) to the W.H. Passon Historical Society. All of these facts are well documented.

I read the Wikipedia entry for the Southgate-Lewis house in May. Given my age, I felt obligated to put on the record what I know about the Southgate-Lewis House. (The last few days have made me question the wisdom of this “feeling.”)

I hope that all interested parties will refer to the entry in May, prior to my contribution.

I have no financial ties with the house. I went to one or two W.H. Passon Historical Society meetings in the 1980s. I have not been to a single meeting since then. I certainly knew Ada Simond, when I was restoring the house and living in the house.

I presume it is perfectly clear that the house is no longer mine. Further there is absolutely no way the house could ever be mine again.

I am obviously not qualified to prepare a Wikipedia entry. The User:Qwirkle, who is apparently an expert Wikipedia Editor, (as well as an expert in the matters related to this topic) has removed about half of what I wrote. I trust that User:Qwirkle is confident that everything she or he has done has improved the quality and the accuracy of this entry for the Southgate-Lewis house. Posterity depends upon User:Qwirkle’s competence.

I am disturbed that User:Qwirkle has questioned the factual accuracy of what I think I know about The Southgate-Lewis House. User:Qwirkle may well be correct. I certainly do not feel competent enough within the framework of Wikipedia to engage in an academic discourse with a professional editor such as User:Qwirkle. If we could discuss the issues, I may well agree with User:Qwirkle. On the other hand, I might be able to convince User:Qwirkle that what I have described is factually accurate. For now I will simply defer to what I presume is a knowledgeable and competent Editor.

I presume it is obvious that I could present what I think would be a cogent argument for each of the topics that User:Qwirkle has deleted.

One of the banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.”

It is undoubtedly true that I am talking about “the subject in a subjective manner.” However, I earnestly felt as though I was imparting “real information.” I most definitely do not feel as though I am trying to “promote” something.

I suppose one could call me an “Historic Preservationist” and in that sense I most certainly do want to promote the “Preservation” of this City, State, and National historic landmark. I want to promote the Preservation of all such historic landmarks. It seemed to me that describing all that I knew about the Southgate-Lewis House would help preserve the Southgate-Lewis House.

And, of course, as one might well presume, I have a dear fondness for this particular historic house, given my history with the house – several decades ago (circa 1980). I truly hope the house will be preserved.

Once again: The house is no longer mine. Further there is absolutely no way the house could ever be mine again.

One of the other banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia.”

I will simply accept this to be true. I ever so hope that someone can “fix” this problem. I doubt that I have the appropriate skills for this task.

One of the other banners at the top of the Southgate-Lewis House entry reads as follows:

“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.”

I have declared my connection to the Southgate-Lewis House. Again, it is not my house and it will never be my house again. I have had no connection to the house for decades. I hope that it will be preserved for posterity.

The fourth banner at the top of the Southgate-Lewis entry reads as follows:

“This article's factual accuracy is disputed."

I truly believe that all I have said is factually accurate. I think we would simply have to discuss each item individually. I really do not know how to address this matter. Again: I truly believe that all I have said is factually accurate.

If a knowledgeable Editor would like to provide me with well informed advice on how to proceed, I would be a grateful recipient.

[ {Multiple issues}} with 4 maintenance template(s): Peacock, Accuracy, Tone, ] It is my sincere hope that, with the assistance of knowledgeable Wikipedia Editors, we can resolve the problems described in the “4 maintenance templates” so that this Wikipedia article will live up to the high standards of Wikipedia. It is my earnest hope that this entry concerning the Southgate-Lewis House will soon be excellent – a paragon of excellence.

DGAAustin

DGAAustin (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC) - - - - - Hello Again User:Qwirkle, Now I am worried I will never be able to locate this link again. If you respond, how will I know ? Where do I go to see if you have responded ? DGAAustin DGAAustin (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC) - - - - -

Wikipedia is not for first publication or personal reminiscences.
, a few points. Wikipedia is…or is supposed to be, this is sometimes more honored in the breach than practice… a trailing tertiary reference. It is supposed to be a compendium of information already covered elsewhere in good sources. Nothing in it should be new. Next, Wikipedia frowns on personal involvement with subjects. The closer you are to a subject, the more you should consider letting somebody else add information on it. Victorian eclectics contained bits and pieces of various styles. Just because a single element -like a single crossed dormer vergeboard- often found in some particular styles is present doesn't mean the building is of that style. The mishmash found in many buildings left them literally nondescript. If you see rosette corner blocks on window and door trim, you can lay money the rest of the trim was machine-produced also. Fully housed stairs are another giveaway for this. Interior sheathing was not all that uncommon in buildings where lumber was cheap in this era. Instead of plaster, muslin was laid and shrunk over the boards as a base for wallpaper, Bob Vila notwithstanding. If you see any interesting figure in floor boards, they ain’t quartersawn. Quartersawn lumber has many virtues, but it is visually boring. References should support the central contention. When you write that you entertained a Nobel Laureate at your home, the part that requires verification isn’t the fellow’s Nobel -a simple link to the persons name will do that- but the fact that you had them over. Adding cites that describe an architectural style do not prove that a particular building belongs to them. That’s a small bit about what is…or, in some cases was…wrong with the article. Qwirkle (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Quarter sawn wood: Is it "visually boring" or is it the "pinnacle of beauty"? Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's home.
- - - - - Hello User:Qwirkle, Here I quote User:Qwirkle: "Quartersawn lumber . . . is visually boring." In all my years, I have never (even once) heard another human being voice anything even remotely similar to this very unusual opinion. Beauty certainly does rest in the eye of the beholder. Here I provide a few quotes that were randomly collected from the World Wide Web – each from a different Web-Page Link. (1) For those looking for flooring that is at the pinnacle of beauty and quality, search no further. Quarter sawn wood flooring can be the solution. (2) Quarter sawn hardwoods are beautiful and distinctive. (3) The flecks and rays that abound in quarter sawn oak wood are particularly prized and are essential features of mission style antique and period piece furniture. (4) Dramatic flecking is also present. . . (5) The resulting visual effect is called “ray fleck”, and it’s the secret behind the distinctive look of antique oak furniture. (6) Quarter sawing reveals dramatic internal rays. (7) One of the most sought after features of quarter sawn wood. . . is the flecks and the rays that appear. . . these flecks and rays can be quite dramatic and add a unique, striking quality to the wood. - - - - - Finally – in light of your comment about quarter sawn wood being "boring" – it is well worth considering how Frank Lloyd Wright felt about quarter sawn wood. https://flwright.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Home-and-Studio-What%27s-Wright.pdf Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's own home and studio. His own "Oak Park Home" is filled with quarter sawn wood. The front door: "Door is of quarter-sawn oak." The Fireplace: "All original terra cotta tiles and quarter-sawn oak." Furniture: "The table is quarter-sawn oak." Wood: "Mostly original—quarter-sawn oak." Closets: "made of quarter-sawn oak."

https://flwright.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Home-and-Studio-What%27s-Wright.pdf DGAAustin DGAAustin (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) - - - - -


 * All of which is focused on oak, and the ray pattern seen in it on quartersawn and some riftsawn lumber. This has nothing to do with longleaf pine, which has its own characteristics and properties. Qwirkle (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The simple general point is that quarter sawn reveals a pattern (a beautiful pattern) – whether the wood is oak or southern yellow pine. DGAAustin (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. In wood with uniform growth rings, vertical grain lumber produces…stripes. That’s it. Lots of Dougie and longleaf looks like this. Wood that looks like this isn’t generally selected for looks. Qwirkle (talk)


 * But again: Beauty rests in the eye of the beholder.


 * Here one can see an example of Southern Yellow Pine quarter sawn to reveal the "vertical grain":


 * https://phillipsforestproducts.com/Species/quarter-sawn-pine

DGAAustin (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Gentle Reader, note the difference between the rather simple pattern seen on the page linked just above, extreme as it is for vertical grain, and the wood seen in the pictures this person himself has added to the article about his own effin’ house. Qwirkle (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

R.C. Lambie . . . "public buildings were, frankly, misproportioned."
- - - - - Hello User:Qwirkle, You have stated the following about Robert C. Lambie: " some of his public buildings were, frankly, misproportioned. " Could you please direct me to the buildings that you are referring to and the critiques of these buildings that conclude they are "misproportioned." I am unaware of such critiques.


 * Gentle Reader, consider the Hays County Courthouse, which DGAAustin apparently illustrates aesthetic Areté. Go figure. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be a very grateful recipient of these referrals. When I look at Old Main, I see something that I consider to be very beautiful. https://www.txstate.edu/about/history-traditions/old-main.html Thank you. DGAAustin DGAAustin (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I”m gonna let this loquitate for its own damned ipsa. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for first publication or personal reminiscences.
, a few points. Wikipedia is…or is supposed to be, this is sometimes more honored in the breach than practice… a trailing tertiary reference. It is supposed to be a compendium of information already covered elsewhere in good sources. Nothing in it should be new. Next, Wikipedia frowns on personal involvement with subjects. The closer you are to a subject, the more you should consider letting somebody else add information on it. Victorian eclectics contained bits and pieces of various styles. Just because a single element -like a single crossed dormer vergeboard- often found in some particular styles is present doesn't mean the building is of that style. The mishmash found in many buildings left them literally nondescript. If you see rosette corner blocks on window and door trim, you can lay money the rest of the trim was machine-produced also. Fully housed stairs are another giveaway for this. Interior sheathing was not all that uncommon in buildings where lumber was cheap in this era. Instead of plaster, muslin was laid and shrunk over the boards as a base for wallpaper, Bob Vila notwithstanding. If you see any interesting figure in floor boards, they ain’t quartersawn. Quartersawn lumber has many virtues, but it is visually boring. References should support the central contention. When you write that you entertained a Nobel Laureate at your home, the part that requires verification isn’t the fellow’s Nobel -a simple link to the persons name will do that- but the fact that you had them over. Adding cites that describe an architectural style do not prove that a particular building belongs to them. That’s a small bit about what is…or, in some cases was…wrong with the article. Qwirkle (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Quarter sawn wood: Is it "visually boring" or is it the "pinnacle of beauty"? Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's home.
- - - - - Hello User:Qwirkle, Here I quote User:Qwirkle: "Quartersawn lumber . . . is visually boring." In all my years, I have never (even once) heard another human being voice anything even remotely similar to this very unusual opinion. Beauty certainly does rest in the eye of the beholder. Here I provide a few quotes that were randomly collected from the World Wide Web – each from a different Web-Page Link. (1) For those looking for flooring that is at the pinnacle of beauty and quality, search no further. Quarter sawn wood flooring can be the solution. (2) Quarter sawn hardwoods are beautiful and distinctive. (3) The flecks and rays that abound in quarter sawn oak wood are particularly prized and are essential features of mission style antique and period piece furniture. (4) Dramatic flecking is also present. . . (5) The resulting visual effect is called “ray fleck”, and it’s the secret behind the distinctive look of antique oak furniture. (6) Quarter sawing reveals dramatic internal rays. (7) One of the most sought after features of quarter sawn wood. . . is the flecks and the rays that appear. . . these flecks and rays can be quite dramatic and add a unique, striking quality to the wood. - - - - - Finally – in light of your comment about quarter sawn wood being "boring" – it is well worth considering how Frank Lloyd Wright felt about quarter sawn wood. https://flwright.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Home-and-Studio-What%27s-Wright.pdf Consider Frank Lloyd Wright's own home and studio. His own "Oak Park Home" is filled with quarter sawn wood. The front door: "Door is of quarter-sawn oak." The Fireplace: "All original terra cotta tiles and quarter-sawn oak." Furniture: "The table is quarter-sawn oak." Wood: "Mostly original—quarter-sawn oak." Closets: "made of quarter-sawn oak."

https://flwright.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Home-and-Studio-What%27s-Wright.pdf DGAAustin DGAAustin (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC) - - - - -


 * All of which is focused on oak, and the ray pattern seen in it on quartersawn and some riftsawn lumber. This has nothing to do with longleaf pine, which has its own characteristics and properties. Qwirkle (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The simple general point is that quarter sawn reveals a pattern (a beautiful pattern) – whether the wood is oak or southern yellow pine. DGAAustin (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. In wood with uniform growth rings, vertical grain lumber produces…stripes. That’s it. Lots of Dougie and longleaf looks like this. Wood that looks like this isn’t generally selected for looks. Qwirkle (talk)


 * But again: Beauty rests in the eye of the beholder.


 * Here one can see an example of Southern Yellow Pine quarter sawn to reveal the "vertical grain":


 * https://phillipsforestproducts.com/Species/quarter-sawn-pine

DGAAustin (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Gentle Reader, note the difference between the rather simple pattern seen on the page linked just above, extreme as it is for vertical grain, and the wood seen in the pictures this person himself has added to the article about his own effin’ house. Qwirkle (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

R.C. Lambie . . . "public buildings were, frankly, misproportioned."
- - - - - Hello User:Qwirkle, You have stated the following about Robert C. Lambie: " some of his public buildings were, frankly, misproportioned. " Could you please direct me to the buildings that you are referring to and the critiques of these buildings that conclude they are "misproportioned." I am unaware of such critiques.


 * Gentle Reader, consider the Hays County Courthouse, which DGAAustin apparently [thinks] illustrates aesthetic Areté. Go figure. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be a very grateful recipient of these referrals. When I look at Old Main, I see something that I consider to be very beautiful. https://www.txstate.edu/about/history-traditions/old-main.html Thank you. DGAAustin DGAAustin (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I”m gonna let this loquitate for its own damned ipsa. Qwirkle (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Little Rock Nine
Hello Qwirkle,

This is regarding the investigation into the article Little Rock Nine.

The source that you claim Wikipedia copied was actually copying Wikipedia. The article on the source was dated 14 November 2012, however matches the source almost exactly, meaning that this was a backwards copy and therefore not a copyright infringement.

A message from the user ADavidB was placed on the talk page 8 days ago also addressing this issue.

Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ahh, so it’s merely wikicircular citogenesis, and OK, since it doesn’t potentially affect Jimma’s retirement account. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Miriam Benjamin, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please do not remove reliable secondary sources already discussed on the article Talk page. If you dispute the source, please discuss your concern there. Thank you,'' Beccaynr (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ”Without adequate explanation” is probably more a problem of reception than transmission. if you think otherwise, than take it to ANI. Qwirkle (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My hope is for us to discuss the article on its Talk page. I am working to address the concerns you have raised, and trying to communicate with you, and I would appreciate it if you would collaborate on improvements to the article through discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be your hope, but it frankly doesn’t look to be within your capability. Do not come back here, except for your usual template bombing. Qwirkle (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Bain
A two-word judgement on wikipedia, that. 10 years… Qwirkle (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:New York City Subway
As I am not from Birmingham, I can only assume that this post per "brummagem crusade" was an uncivil personal attack? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If that is all you can assume, then I suggest you take it to ANI. Goodbye. Qwirkle (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good. Your unfortunate ideas about English grammar will get a few more eyes on them, which can not hurt. Qwirkle (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from uncontructive edits
Was this supposed to be a joke? Be so kind and don't put an accuracy tag into an article because you want to be funny. And in case this was a serious edit, please do not put an accuracy tag on an article which you apparently didn't read. Applodion (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If you actually read (or reread) the source that quote reference came from, you wouldn’t have to ask that sort of damnfool question. Qwirkle (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User talk:MRPASTA2/Archive 1
Hello, Qwirkle,

Why are you archiving talk page messages for other editors? MRPASTA2 had only made one edit! I hope you don't make a practice of doing this. This archive would be a page you could tag for speedy deletion as a mistake. I only stumbled upon this because I wanted to see if they had responded to my message. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? Because the archive button is more or less right in the place I scroll up and down, and my fingers are sometimes rather clumsy. Qwirkle (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Further damnation of wikipedia by redlink.
George R. Angehr. Ave atque vale, bro. Qwirkle (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
Your recent editing history at Basque (clothing) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * If it’s reached the point where removing blatant vandalism -surreptitious recreation of material deleted at the victim’s subjects request by an SPA- gets this kind of response, then Hell take it, and Hasten the Day. Qwirkle (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think what the user is doing constitutes vandalism, then you should report it to the appropriate noticeboard, not edit-war for over a month. You didn't even leave a warning on the user's Talk page for vandalism, disruption, or whatever you think it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It rather looks as though I’d answered that before you even wrote it, the operative word being “blatant”, but I suppose that’s what makes horse races. Goodbye. Qwirkle (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey
Here - although you're probably right about Russ's opinion, that's not enough. I've had to remove it. DS (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast
Hello, Qwirkle,

I had to cut and paste your comment to this discussion after reverting my closure of this AFD. Please check and make sure I added it correctly. Also, you might want to remove the "Gone" template as you are still around. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s good to see you back
We need quality hard-right-wing editors like yourself. Welcome back. — Jacona (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I was going to just let this die a natural death, but…


 * First, I hope you noticed that some people might see this as painting a target on a fellow wikipedian’s back.


 * Next, the fact that someone challenges left-wing bullshit on Wikipedia is hardly evidence they are “hard-right-wing;” it may be just that they recognize that the demographics of Wikipedia mean that, say, Trumpist slush is dealt with quickly, but that nonsense that that average wikitor sees as comfortably in their own personal overton window can linger unchecked. Can you name the “right-wing” equivalent of, say, Cirt?


 * Qwirkle (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKCRIT
An article cannot be on the main page if it has a maintenance tag. If you feel the tag is needed the article will have to be pulled. I suggest you post at errors and an admin will remove the article from the DYK set. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No, actually. The Do You Kare Kriteria specifies that articles should not deserve tags, a very different thing.
 * I will get it sorted. It is a rule at the top of WP:DYKCRIT. So since the tag is there the article must be pulled. Unfortunate for the author. Lightburst (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But so much nicer for the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that applies to articles at the time of nomination. Articles that are tagged while they are on the Main Page do not, AFAIK, have to be pulled unless it's something like copyvio or a serious BLP issue ... otherwise a disruptively minded griefer-type "editor" could just find a reason to tag each and every article on DYK with some banner and sit back and enjoy the ensuing chaos. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I expect it will be pulled sometime while you are sleeping. I have seen it many times. I had hoped that Qwirkle would allow the run, since the tag is subjective. Lightburst (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ”Should not deserve,” while subjective, would obviously apply across the time the article is highlighted on the main page.Qwirkle (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have asked the tagging editor to come back and explain themselves. Again, in years of doing DYK I have never seen an article pulled from a set just because of a single non-AfD tag: copyvio, serious BLP issues or something like that. I reiterate: that would just open the door to drive-by disruption that we could not do anything about.
 * "Should not deserve" ... hmm? Were you paying attention to what you typed? Given that you left out that the first bullet point over there says "At the time of nomination ...", which means that if whoever wrote that meant for any other criteria there to apply even during the article's run on the Main Page, they would have said so. "While subjective, would obviously apply" cancels itself out even in the absence of that misreading. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I was. The fact that an article is seen as in a certain state at time of nomination doesn’t somehow insulate it against later problems. Qwirkle (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)