User talk:QwertyForest

This user has an alternative account named QwertyForest (public).

This user is a regular, and is indifferent to being templated. You may choose to template or not template them at your own discretion.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science abortion gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hello, QwertyForest!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QwertyForest,

You have only been editing for two weeks but your edits are not those of a brand new editor. Your first two edits were comments in AFD deletion discussions...most new editors don't even know about the AFD area until they have been editing for weeks or months but you headed right there. If you previously edited Wikipedia with other accounts, you need to identify them on your User page or your conduct might prompt questions about sockpuppetry.

Better to be open and honest with your past editing experience because you clearly know your way around the project that an editor with your experience wouldn't know. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Liz. I understand your concern here, since I agree that many newbies do not do this.

This account may be considered a clean start, but I was not sure that I needed to tag myself as one because my previous account was abandomned after barely any edits. Also, I was worried that tagging myself as a clean start would make me look like I have been on Wikipedia for much longer than I have. I do not currently operate any accounts other than this one.

In the weeks before I created this account, I was waiting out some sort of IP block. Therefore, I spent a lot of time reading around the Wikipedia namespace. This is how I learned about AFD. When I created the account, I could not find any typos to fix on the suggested edits and was unsure about additions due to lack of experience with sourcing. Therefore, I went to AFD since I have an idea of what to do there.

Additionally, I have previously edited on other wikis such as Fandom and TV Tropes. This has helped me with getting some experience, such as introducing me to some wikiformatting, using templates and the concept of article deletion.

Although your suspicion about me is understandable, I can confirm that I am not a sockpuppet. Hope to see you around again sometime! QwertyForest (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for reverting vandalism. However, there have been several cases where vandals have made more than one edit and you haven't completely reverted the vandalism, such as at Alexander Cartwright, Betty Shabazz, Digital library, and Heinrich Klaasen. This arguably happened with your edit to Fawaz Gerges too, but that was a much more unusual situation. Please make sure you have reverted all the edits by a user when doing vandalism-fighting. I would very strongly recommend that you use semi-automated tools to help you revert vandalism and warn users like Twinkle or RedWarn. Also, above you mentioned not being able to find typos to fix; there's always the typo team. There's also WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors if that's your thing. Graham87 (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Graham87! I have now installed RedWarn, which should help with reverting vandalism. I appreciate the advice! QwertyForest (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this is blaze wolf's alt account. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits as you did at my own talk page. The fact that you would delete an ADMINS talk page is not the smartest move. This is clearly Vandalism and has been reverted, so next time you should use your sandbox page and maybe vandalize less. I’m banning you without any more warnings.

sincerely, (ADMIN) HoveringTurtle9 (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am unsure what you are talking about, since I am unable to delete pages. Also, I have checked your permissions and you are not currently an admin. Edit: Also, I have reason to believe that you are not Blaze Wolf. You are not acknowledged as an alt on either of your user pages. Additionally, blocks and bans are not the same thing, so even if I had deleted the page it would not result in a ban. Any admin would know that a block is the more appropriate action for stopping someone from editing in that case. QwertyForest (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

This draft is entirely an advertisement, and you are attempting to defend it by contesting G11. I recognize that you are new here; however, please identify the sections that are not spammy. Additionally, avoid engaging with content that you do not fully comprehend, that would be more helpful. Thank you. Hitro talk 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you are talking about the draft where I said that the promotional wording is surmountable and that I could edit it when I got to a PC. I was not trying to defend its current state, but I could see some sentences that were not spammy. My intention was to reduce it into an acceptable stub.

To resolve this, is it possible to request a copy of the deleted content so I can subbify it? I think this would help determine whether or not this is possible. QwertyForest (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that the "this discussion" link on your userpage does not work because there's a pipe at the end of the anchor name. Have a good day, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! I think I have fixed it now. QwertyForest (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, QwertyForest. Do you really hope Fetishise Asians or Hate Asians - Your Choice has a great day? Just wondering. Bishonen | tålk 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! It's one of the things I often say when ending a talk page message (the other main one being 'best regards'). Even if someone is behaving inappropriately on Wikipedia, they probably have a life outside of Wikipedia. Wishing someone a great day does not mean that I condone inappropriate edits. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted my accepted edit on Koeri because the parameter should be 'name' instead of 'caste_name'. I checked the Template:Infobox caste documentation, that only specifies a caste_name. Should the template/documentation be adjusted? Rofraja (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I reverted the edit because I thought that the infobox had broken and your edit was the cause. On further inspecion, it looks like it has not broken and the two are equally acceptable. I can revert back to your version if you want. QwertyForest (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that "citation" was made more in jest that anything else (although I am a native speaker, by the way). But the information I provided was in earnest.

I'd love to add a source, but I do not how (I'm on mobile) and what exactly would qualify as a source in this case. I have an article from doxologia.ro, one of the most important Orthodox publications in the country, titled, somewhat jovially, "Sfinții Sfântului Munte" (The Saints of the Holy Mountain), and you'll find there Mount Athos being refered to as the Holy Mountain in several places. If you'd be so kind as to clarify for me whether this is a reliable source and eventually add it for me or at least show me how to add it myself, I'd be very grateful.

https://doxologia.ro/sfintii-sfantului-munte 2A02:2F0E:509:2B00:E49B:C452:9DFE:2DFC (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]