User talk:(wszx)

Rollback
Hi there, please review the Rollback examples before requesting for rollback. After you have read it thoroughly and understand when to use it, you may sign here. 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason I have to sign the page? I've reviewed what this wiki thinks is the way to do rollback, and will abide by it. This signature really means nothing. (wszx) ''' 21:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"They are known for"
That says that it is common knowledge. Now maybe you personally find it to be true, but when no one I asked knew anything about it, it means it is not common knowledge, therefore the statement is indeed incorrect.--Degenret01 01:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is handily one of the most absurd things ever written. It's only common knowledge if you and your clique know about it, but not anybody else? Really? (wszx) ''' 01:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if I asked only my "clique" it could be, although my "clique" has a lot of people that slay them often so they are a decent sample to ask. But I took the further step of asking a few people slaying them on a couple of worlds also. One person said they heard of it, but had not found it to be true.--Degenret01 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're missing the point. Unless you're asking on the scale of hundreds of people, corroborated by other editors' queries, it's not reasonable to suggest what you have heard is truly indicative.
 * We needn't belabor this point, however. Are you disputing that they drop a lot of blue charms? (wszx) ''' 02:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Barrows set
IGN - In-game name. Sorry about that, probably shouldn't have abbreviated it. See Style Guide, where it says that the IGN should be used. 03:09, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello, please stop your edit war with User:Chipmunk9998 on Tome of frost right now. Talk it over. If you both don't stop, then expect to be blocked from editing. Additionally, you are abusing your rollback rights. Stop. Ajraddatz Talk 17:53, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an edit war. There have been two reverts. Please don't issue stupid warnings you cannot enforce. Thanks. (wszx)  17:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) 
 * It is an edit war, and you have abused your rollback rights. Talk it out. 3RR doesn't mean that it takes three reverts to become an edit war, it becomes one after one revert. Also, this isn't a threat, and I can have you blocked via a request to an admin. Ajraddatz Talk 17:59, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Blocking
it would have just made things worse, trust me. Power abuse, conspiracy, dictatorship, etc. That all would have been thrown against me, and I didn't feel like having to defend my self because a couple of people are being offensive. 04:10, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The neat thing about that though, is that if your block is justified then you won't have to worry about the defense because others will take note and voice support. Closing an entire thread, when part of the problem in question is admins cutting off discussion, seems ill-advised. (wszx)  04:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 
 * Yeah, but you forget the avergae user here. You had it twice, and you were entirely correct. .  04:16, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Explanation, please?
As I said in my edit summary, "I understand removing Halo's addition to this page because his addition wasn't made by consensus. Removing the "get out of jail free card" section was also not done by consensus." Why did you remove the "get out of jail free card" section? I would appreciate if you would respond to this message on my talk page. Leftiness 23:36, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it saying "doing so will increase your chance of being kicked" is pointless, but I think it's important to make sure that chat members know that they shouldn't expect a warning. Honestly, I think that a message to everyone's talk page saying so would do more good for the unjust kicking thread epidemic than any yew grove discussion. Leftiness 00:00, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the part I removed did nothing to enforce that warnings won't always be given; rather it actively propagated such a notion. (wszx)  00:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 

Userpage
I like your userpage and name

Just popped in to say that

I like userpages and names

That's my job round 'ere

It pays well

Deal with it

It also counts for 99.6% of my edit count

Check if you don't believe me

Anyway. Byeee - 13:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks. (wszx)  20:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * Love the userpage. I'll take the bunny with a waffle on its head for $250, Ted. Coelacanth0794 20:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
It's to be used in cases of obvious vandalism and only in cases of obvious vandalism. Removing nonconstructive, flaming edits is perfectly allowed and is even mentioned in RS:DDD. 06:31, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your removal was inappropriate and tantamount to vandalism. It was a proper revert and I will do it again. (wszx)  06:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * It was not "blatant flaming". It wasn't the nicest statement ever, but it wasn't blatant flaming.  If you disagree, I will gladly get more neutral editors to add their opinions.  But here, you are playing Judge, Jury, and Executioner.  The block was warranted in my opinion (due to the other stuff he has done.)  But the comments should and will remain upon the thread.   06:36, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked you for violating RS:3RR and misusing your rollback tool. 06:38, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Unblock
Ignoring the fact that my reverts were wholly appropriate, Andrew has a conflict of interest and absolutely should not have blocked me. Please remedy this. (wszx)  06:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * I agree with the block. The comments that were removed were not constructive to the discussion and it was very obvious that they would lead to a flame war. And the reverts were not appropriate at all. It wasn't vandalism to remove those comments so the revert tool wasn't supposed to be used. You should have posted on andrew's talk page instead of endlessly reverting his edits. I sympathize with you in that I can see how removing the comments could be seen as wrong, but that doesn't exonerate you from wrongdoing. 06:45, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Andrew did not only remove the alleged flaming, he removed his threat (which he executed) to block the editor in question. That is an abysmal abuse of power—conflicts of interest prevent Andrew from blocking Cool. In removing this, he was seeking to cover up his abuse of tools. That cannot be allowed to stand. Further, the edits were not flaming of the order that they must be removed. So, yes, Andrew's removal was vandalism and my use of rollback is valid and exempt from 3RR. Someone should go unblock Cool, btw. (wszx)  06:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC) 
 * You have been unblocked. I forgot that RS:3RR gives you a maximum of three reverts and I thought that it meant to block anyone that reverts three times. I do extend my apologies, but you did misuse rollback. Now, of course I removed my warning to block them. What was the point of leaving it up if Col's comments were removed? 06:51, July 20, 2010 (UTC)