User talk:Qwerty123M: Difference between revisions

Line 219: Line 219:

Hi there, thanks for your edit to [[Template:Apple hardware since 1998]]. I’ve reverted the edit, since the template is intended for Apple products, such as the iPhone, Mac, iPad, etc., and not Apple product features. You may notice that other feature marketing names (Camera Control, Face ID, ProMotion) are omitted for the same reason. Thanks again for your contributions! [[User:Phuzion|phuzion]] ([[User talk:Phuzion|talk]]) 11:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

== 2024 UK general elections ==

{{Ping|Qwerty123M}} Hi! I’ve seen your message. I’d like to clarify, without any kind of complaint, the reasoning behind my edit, in order to understand if I’m missing something or if the report (or me) have been “cooking the numbers” so to speak XD.

First of all, sorry for my broken English. Second of all, getting to the point, I’ve taken all of my info from this source [https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10009/CBP-10009.pdf Link to the Final Report – House of Commons] which, I believe, it’s the best source available, since it’s official.

I think you and I both wrote an article for Playlunch at the same time! I checked, there wasn’t one, I wrote a draft, and then when I tried to move it to mainspace you had made one. I added what I wrote to the article you made. — NotCharizard ^🗨 10:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have removed some citations from railway articles commenting that it is available as an external link. As per WP:EL, it is better to cite things rather than use an external link. A citation by its positioning in the article makes clear what information is confirmed by the citation. An external link is intended more for “further reading”. Kerry (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerty123M, I note that according to WP:RMUM, bold moves that have been reverted (like the one you just made) should not be moved again without discussion, as there is now evidence of disagreement with the move. Therefore, if you wish to move Greater Sydney Commission to Greater Cities Commission, the more appropriate procedure would be for you to open a full move request discussion instead. Tomiĉo (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital ID.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited My First Days in the White House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful to check new users’ usernames for blatant violations of the username policy, such as this user you welcomed. In addition to that, I would review all edits for potential conflicts of interest. In this case however, I assume first that the user is probably just a (public) transport fan/enthusiast. Fork99 (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Social media ban has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2 § Social media ban until a consensus is reached. Absolutiva 02:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Privacy Act 1988, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think Hansard is a reliable secondary source, as, in this example, Littleproud was the primary source (he spoke his words), but Hansard is a faithful record of what he said and the context in which he said it. Of course I have no objection to adding news report as an additional citation. I think there is value in having the Hansard citation so people can see exactly what the pollie said and the context in which it was said (e.g what might have been said by other people previously that the pollie might be reacting to, e.g. some specific example). Some news media reports do report a pollie’s words selectively or literally but out of context, which can convey a different meaning. I make these comments generally not specifically about Littleproud and the specific issue in the article. Kerry (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Online Safety Amendment is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ElijahPepe — ElijahPepe (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Online Safety Amendment has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer’s feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ElijahPepe — ElijahPepe (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bipartisanship in United States politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Factionalism.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.EA is announcement today.Real Racing 3 will shutdown on March 19,2026.I added official website link on the Real Racing 3 page.Thank you. AYAKA (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, Qwerty123M, for placing my comment on your User Page and not here. Mea culpa. Shipsview (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwerty123M, let’s try to de-escalate this. Let’s address two things, the move review process and article title consistency.

The move review process does seem to work differently from the requested move process, being a review of the process rather than the merits. This is the first time in 20 years of editing I’ve been involved in one. There’s probably a bit of a statute of limitations on it; I’d say a RM is the better place for a review of something that occurred nearly three years ago, which now has 2,081 direct links, even if you are contesting the process. It could be reasonable there to mention that your concerns about the closing process before. But let’s come back to the principle of assuming good faith. In this instance, I could have boldly moved the article in question, and chose instead to check if there were other views. I was not required to make a requested move in this instance. Perhaps having started it, I should have determined definitely that there was consensus. I didn’t, but I wasn’t trying to undermine anything. I appreciate you coming to my talk page, but there was no need to start with “vehement disagreement”, “blatant disregard”, “abandonment of one of Wikipedia’s main principles”, and “unilateralism”. You wrote on Talk:Independent politicians in Australia that the MR process meant you had to “argu[e] strongly in one position over the other”. I don’t see why it does. You should be able to state your case while being open to discussion. Over my years here, I’ve proposed changes that have been rejected following discussion with other editors. I’ve sometimes been won around to their perspectives. And even if you’re arguing strongly, you need not get personal. That’s why my initial response said that I would discuss, and would have done so without so many citations to guidelines; it’s also why I moved it to WT:IE, so that it would not be so personally driven. There’s nothing inherent in the MR process more than any other interaction between editors that should bring things to that level.
Even though Wikipedia is one project, it also has sub-projects that work autonomously. That’s why we can have a Manual of Style and also an Ireland-related manual of style. That’s not to say that this particular dispute or inconsistency comes under that, but that there is some amount of flexibility. Remember Rule Five of Wikipedia. Given that there’s unlikely to be much interaction between Independent politicians in Australia and Independent politician (Ireland), what is truly lost by the inconsistency? As has been said by another Irish editor, it has “been at that current location for nearly three years without anybody objecting”.

Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for getting personal, I didn’t think I was doing that but it might have just been the heat of the moment that made me want to be very direct. I probably should have started a requested move at the beginning of this discussion to put the issue to rest but there was a lack of participation on the WikiProject so I was in doubt and felt I just had to proceed with the next steps I was already thinking of. I’m looking to get an administrator’s opinion out of the move review process now so that I’m not in doubt over what should happen. I was a bit confused as to whether I should have started a requested move again because the requested move template states that a move review is preferred in a dispute when the discussion has been closed, and I think I was just too quick at reading all the material Wikipedia had but I didn’t properly understand the consequences.

The inconsistency creates a strange dilemma for readers when they search “Independent politician” and see an entry that is not in a similar format to the other article. It also creates a strange situation where Wikipedia is not as tidy as it should be. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Qwerty123M, you said here], “Please ask me questions about my behaviour instead of only calling it out”. I asked you a question here and you have ignored it, choosing instead starting a new process on another page, with the same complaints about not following TITLECON and Iveagh Gardens supposedly not following due process. So I’ll ask you another question: why do you feel so strongly about the title of an article that you didn’t even know about until a few weeks ago. Scolaire (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner; I thought you were using the word “literally” in an aggressive way that meant it would be difficult to respond and so I could only provoke bad feelings, it was also a bit difficult for me to reply to. It is strange that I am so concerned about a somewhat minor thing in the grand scheme of Wikipedia’s scope, but I don’t think guidelines are easily negotiable and I’ve come to heavily believe in the idea of consensus guiding decision-making on Wikipedia which I don’t think was followed properly.

I’ve known the article had a different title to the Australian version for a few months but I wasn’t brave enough to start the move review process, now that I have I don’t know if I can or should go back. I don’t think I properly understand still why a requested move discussion was closed in a way that does not respect the opinions of others. I do however firmly believe in this change.

WP:IAR qualifies the “ignore all rules” statement by saying that “if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining“, I view this proposed change as an improvement. I thought these were the proper channels to resolve discussion but it seems not to be working so well. I think the best option now is to see what an administrator makes of the situation via the ongoing move review process.

Are there any good next steps? Qwerty123M (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should cite IAR. That policy is precisely why Iveagh Gardens was right to close a move request that nobody responded to, and why attacking him on multiple pages for doing so was a serious breach of AGF, for which you probably should have been sanctioned. Good next steps? Seriously? Have a read of WP:FORUMSHOP: “Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages…is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as ‘asking the other parent’.)” What you need to do is take a couple of steps back, and see if anybody comes along and agrees with you. Scolaire (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t think I was forum shopping, I haven’t memorised that part of the guideline and I’m sorry of not noticing it sooner. That was not intentional because users on the move review (@SportingFlyer) and on the Australian article’s discussion pages (@Steelkamp) told me to start a requested move, I did not think of that as it’s not what the template tells you to do following a disputed requested move close.

When I said “good next steps”, I did mean to say that I could have closed the discussion if you told me how, I was asking that way to see if you knew of any other options than just premature closure of the discussion. Sorry I wasn’t direct enough but it seems being too direct is my problem so I should disengage more.

Please do not say that I should be sanctioned because outside of this discussion I have been extremely productive, having created 18 articles so far with more planned, and made more than 9,600 edits more generally! I think you are harnessing emotional language to say that. Please calm down, being angry at me can’t resolve this issue properly.

@Iveagh Gardens, what do you and @Scolaire see as the merits and drawbacks to each title to see why we should or should not adopt a new title? I’ll start:
I can see that “Independent politicians in Ireland” has greater consistency with WP:TITLECON as it does not cause confusion in a search result; it is more WP:PRECISE than the current title of that article; people may disregard brackets in titles so may accidentally click on Independent politician (Ireland) but miss the brackets so they will think they are going to the worldwide topic; brackets are a standard format for disambiguation pages, they are not WP:NATURALly used on a regional variation like this, the Australian article gives us a good example to work off of and there was no reason to change it.
I can see reasons to keep the title of Independent politician (Ireland) such as that it is more WP:CONCISE because it has less material than the proposed title; there is some consensus to keep the title as it has been stable for a few years. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking my own advice and withdrawing from all discussion on all pages. Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged: Qwerty, the problem here was your mistaken belief that there was a problem with the original move process. Iveagh Gardens proposed a move, waited a week, no one else opposed, no one else supported, and after a week moved the page on their own. This is a step beyond simply boldly moving the page, which they also referenced possibly doing in their argument for moving. See WP:RMNOMIN: If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested… If anyone had opposed at the time, there would have been a conflict of interest. It’s also been two years, so the page title was stable. I see you’ve started a new move request, which was the correct way forward, but you’ve focused on the process as much as your argument, so it might not be successful. If I were you, I’d withdraw the move review (it’s moot now anyways you’ve started a new move discussion), make an apology to Iveagh Gardens, and wait a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RMCOI doesn’t state that a result in opposition or in favour means that a conflict interest does or does not occur, I take that mean that requested moves should never be closed by the opener.

You have provided a very good guideline and is a massive reason to withdraw the move review discussion. I just need to know now if withdrawing a discussion of that type is possible. The guidelines on WP:MR give me no clarity on if that is an option, it’s difficult to cite WP:WITHDRAW because that’s a subsection of Wikipedia:Deletion process. I know I can only withdraw requested moves in specific circumstances per WP:RMEC and those conditions are met because there is very little (and likely not to be any) support.

I just want to know from other editors what is wrong with the current and proposed title per the guidelines, I feel like the process is becoming too much based on personal emotions rather than official Wikipedia policy. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RMCOI is not absolute, though. Since anyone can boldly move a page, no one would ever revert that move or discredit that move discussion. The guidelines exist to minimise conflict, not to create process for the sake of process.

It’s absolutely possible to withdraw, especially as it’s now moot as you’ve started another move discussion. If it’s really a problem, someone else would re-open it, but it won’t/shouldn’t be.

In terms of what’s going on with the titles of the pages, my only guess is that because the only two pages on independent candidates in (country) are Ireland and Australia, consistency isn’t an most important part of the WP:CRITERIA. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any templates I need to use to properly indicate the withdrawal?

We have spent far too much time on this difficult discussion when the article title was not too much of an issue, it’s clear that consensus is unanimously against me and I don’t think a move review is the appropriate forum to discuss this matter anymore. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to move review and follow the closing instructions. Click on Template:move review top for the specific instructions about how to apply the template: I’d do something like (curly brackets) move review top|(brackets)header(brackets)|I’ve withdrawn this move review as moot after opening a new move discussion(end curly brackets). Hope that helps. SportingFlyer T·C 01:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was away for a few days, and I’m glad to see that the move review has been closed. I’m not sure the basis given for the closure is accurate, “due to lack of appetite for a change and fighting rather than discussion”. I think instead it was the case that on review, editors other than yourself were of the view that there was nothing wrong with the April 2023 move, and that while it could now be open to a requested move (as all article titles are), a better description is that the decision was endorsed. But I’m glad at least to see it closed, and also that someone has closed the requested move at Talk:Independent politicians in Australia, bringing this sorry saga closer to an end.

The most apt words in all of these discussions were from SportingFlyer, “The guidelines exist to minimise conflict, not to create process for the sake of process”. Instead, I was subjected to a series of attacks on my intentions, a perfect example of assuming bad faith. I’ve detailed this at the top of this section of the discussion, and it is just unreasonable and should be unacceptable between editors. We’re all (hopefully) trying to improve this project, and we’re inevitably going to occasionally have different views on the best way to do so. Your response to this was that “it might have just been the heat of the moment that made me want to be very direct”. But that was the first interaction we’ve ever had, not a few responses into a discussion. It’s not good enough to cite your number of edits and articles created, as you did when another editor suggested you could be sanctioned. No number of edits gives you a pass on civility. There’s no part of either the move review process or the requested move process that should lead an editor to take the approach you did. Even if you had been correct that the original move was not done in accordance with the correct process (as SportingFlyer has noted, specifically quoting WP:RMNOMIN, the move was perfectly acceptable after no one at all participated in my “just checking” move notification discussion), that’s no way to begin a discussion. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m so sorry for getting those involved into a mess by starting this damaging discussion. I evidently didn’t know how to conduct myself properly and I didn’t think thoroughly enough about my actions, for that I should know better.

I wish I had known earlier that there were better and more productive ways to get my point across such as by not using such harsh language or by starting a new requested move and to simply leave it at that.

I was under the impression that a move review would be easier than it really was.

I believed too strongly in my proposed change that I could not see what I was doing before I had said it, and I did not have the wiseness to close my move review soon enough. I’m sorry for not fully understanding the approaches I should take to being civil and conducting myself with respect for others’ actions. I truly didn’t mean to cause offence to anyone involved, I was trying (but failing) to portray how I felt and I just so happened to be acting in a bad faith way. I wish I had the foresight to know what I would have been doing before I said all those things.

I feel so bad that it’s difficult for me to read those messages due to the nature and complexity with which I wrote those.

I actually thought ending the move review prematurely was a gutless action to take because I wanted this issue to be resolved whereas I should have known how brave an action that would be because there were evidently problems I was causing. I’m sorry I didn’t know how to negotiate and act in good faith to resolve this dispute.

I also realise that I responded very poorly to the proposal for sanctioning me, evidently I must have misunderstood what receiving a sanction means. I thought that would have been an overreaction but I should not have cited the amount of edits I had made because that does not contribute to this discussion. I was shocked at the idea, so I mistakenly rebutted it too harshly. I was only trying to point out that I have been very productive on Wikipedia and I fear a sanction would hamper my ability to contribute.

Please share any advice you have for me. Is there anything I should do to help after this incident? Qwerty123M (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC). Updated at 12:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is one other thing you could do. After 22:47 tomorrow, 7 Jan, when the RM has been up for seven days (assuming nobody else comments in the meantime), you could go to Wikipedia:Closure requests and ask for it to be closed per WP:SNOW, mentioning that you don’t want to close it yourself because you believe it is against WP:RMCOI. That would draw a line under the whole saga. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would withdrawing have the same effect? Qwerty123M (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could withdraw and close yourself and you could do so immediately if you wished. WP:RMEC states, However, when no one has commented yet, or if opposition is unanimous, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe for the following reasons: As long as no one has suggested any outcome besides not moving, the proposer of a move may withdraw their request. The closure should say that the request was withdrawn. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Statewide Treaty Act 2025, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greens.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your edit to Template:Apple hardware since 1998. I’ve reverted the edit, since the template is intended for Apple products, such as the iPhone, Mac, iPad, etc., and not Apple product features. You may notice that other feature marketing names (Camera Control, Face ID, ProMotion) are omitted for the same reason. Thanks again for your contributions! phuzion (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty123M: Hi! I’ve seen your message. I’d like to clarify, without any kind of complaint, the reasoning behind my edit, in order to understand if I’m missing something or if the report (or me) have been “cooking the numbers” so to speak XD.
First of all, sorry for my broken English. Second of all, getting to the point, I’ve taken all of my info from this source Link to the Final Report – House of Commons which, I believe, it’s the best source available, since it’s official.

Here it says, respectively, that the total number of valid votes for party and non party candidates is equal to 28,809,340 votes (p. 10, at the bottom). Later on, it says that the number of invalid votes (without distinguishing from blank or null ballot) is equal to 116,063 votes (p. 64).

Adding it up, it would be a total of 28,925,403 total votes expressed (wrong on the Wikipedia page, as it shows 28,924,725) over 48,207,507 declared registered electors, as said in the Wikipedia page (which I now doubt as a valid number, since the turnout percentage based on it doesn’t match the report). If we do basic proportion, indeed, the turnout is:

28,925,403 : 48,207,507 = x : 100 => (28,925,403 x 100) / 48,207,507 => 2,892,540,300 / 48,207,507 = 60,00186444 ≠ 59,7 (by a lot, in decimal terms). That’s also the result the automated template on the Italian Wikipedia, on which I usually work, gave to me, but the report still talks about a rounded 59,7%.

So, in search of answers, I concluded that it’s either the Wiki page which is wrong with electoral data or the report (due to its approximation). I believe, though, that the fault of all of this is most likely the unverified number of registered electors declared, which may be off and in need to be corrected, as it doesn’t have a source supporting this claim and the report, frustratingly only says “about 48,25 milion” (p. 57).

Therefore, having only this partial informations on my hand, I concluded, in good faith, that the turnout data was wrong on the template and fixed accordingly, since even the Wiki page is inconsistent (at the top shows 59,7 and at the bottom of full results 60).

All that said, hoping that my message will help, I’ll sent you my best wishes for a good rest of the day. For any other follow-up I invite you to contact me, in English too if you want, on my Italian user page, I’ll get in touch as soon as possibile.

Best regards, Vittoriochichia (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply