User talk:Qwasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)


Contents

[edit] Recent edits

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)

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)
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)
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)


[edit] Edits to Mr. T

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)

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

[edit] 3 Revert Rule

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)

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

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

[edit] Request for mediation

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

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

[edit] child pornography examples section

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)

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)
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)
It's not an idea, it's a fact. The features match point-by-point. Qwasty 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line: you can't source the comparison to anyone but yourself. That makes it OR. DanB†DanD 02:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
this discussion has been moved to the Child pornography talk page Qwasty 03:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

[edit] 3RR

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

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)

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

[edit] Prod warning

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)

[edit] Child pornography

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)

A policy reason would serve your purpose better. However, I am certain there are none:
  1. NPOV was stated, but no reasons given, and it was never mentioned again
  2. Original research was stated, reasons given, and each reason given was not actually present and was refuted
  3. 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)

[edit] False warnings

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

The entire section is being blanked, not just the disputed content. That's vandalism. Qwasty 20:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/w/a/User_talk%7EQwasty_2f0d.html"