User talk:.qwertydotplus

Hello, .qwertydotplus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

.qwertydotplus, good luck, and have fun. Rasel ‍Hasan ^Talk 06:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started on Wikipedia and creating new articles can be tricky; you might like to try creating a draft of your article in the Wikipedia draftspace or within your userspace first. Creating a draft allows you the time and space to fix any issues, make updates, and add or expand content, and with less risk of having things deleted. You can even ask for feedback on your work if you need help. Make sure that you read through the Wikipedia help pages available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try using the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Rasel ‍Hasan ^Talk 06:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ventoy dispute held under editor's talk page

Helped

hi there. i've been in an ongoing dispute with another editor about a section on the Ventoy article, specifically about the controversy regarding binary blobs.

the other editor has chosen to completely remove this section, and despite having asked multiple times, this editor has chosen not to discuss their changes on the article talk page, opting to keep discussion contained to within edit summaries and their own talk page on the issue (only after i added a topic to their talk page specifically regarding the issue of them removing the section twice without discussing on the talk page).

after my last response to them, they went to WP:RS/N to ask about involved sources without any notice given to me or on the talk page and again removed the section without discussion, based on the response of a single other party, leaving me to find out only after the edit was made that they had done so.

per the rules of DRN it would seem that i'm powerless in this scenario. how should i proceed?

discussion: User talk:Emiya Mulzomdao#repeated edits to Ventoy article

my points are as follows:

• the section does not fall under WP:CRIT, insofar as the section refers to a single, specific controversy; even if it did, WP:CRIT is an essay, and thus not a valid reason on its own to remove content
• multiple involved sources do not fall under WP:UGC (those sources were not properly checked by the other editor); even if they did, it wouldn't warrant removal of the section (as per WP:PRESERVE, WP:BURDENWAIT)
• consensus should be obtained for large edits
• WP:BURDEN does not require editors adding a source to an article to argue why that source is reliable (but it does require that editors removing material specify why that material's sources are not reliable)
• WP:N does not apply to content within articles (such as sections) and thus is not a reason to remove a section

orthogonally to that discussion, i take particular issue with the way this editor has acted:

• they did not discuss on the article talk page to obtain consensus before their original edit
• they did not discuss on the article talk page when explicitly requested to do so in an edit summary when i reverted their edit
• they did not discuss on the article talk page when i left a note explicitly requesting that they discuss on the talk page to obtain consensus
  • they went out of their way to move to WP:RS/N, rather than moving to discuss on the talk page or to WP:DRN
• they provided no notice that they had done this, and only made mention of it in another edit summary, again without discussion
• they made their edit on the opinion of a single editor, rather than waiting to obtain consensus

however, as there has not been extensive discussion on the article talk page, i'm unsure as to whether WP:DRN is allowed in this scenario. .qwertydotplus (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, DRN is "allowed": "Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN."

You should follow the process at WP:DR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

just making sure once more; the text here really seems to indicate that's not the case:

"Has this issue been discussed extensively on the article talk page?"

"At a minimum, recent extensive discussion needs to have taken place on the talk page of the page in question.

Note: If a suitable discussion link is not provided, your request may be automatically closed.

"

.qwertydotplus (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say that your attempts to discuss, although ignored, were sufficient. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits; 14:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)