This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User:The Devil's Advocate nominated Krista Branch a few weeks ago. I reviewed the article and cited problems (see the GA1 review on Talk:Krista Branch). User:The Devil's Advocate did not do anything to rectify those problems and complained that they weren't specific enough for his tastes. User:The Devil's Advocate attempted to obstruct edits to rectify said problems. On 25 July 2012 I failed the GA nomination after several days where User:The Devil's Advocate did not respond to the GA review or edit the article to improve it per my review. On 26 July 2012, User:The Devil's Advocate renominated for GA. Personally, I believe it was intended to be spiteful and implied "I will ignore User:ColonelHenry's review and act as if it didn't happen." This behavior is disrespectful to other editors and seems to be an end-run designed to subvert the GA review process.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 03:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
@The Devil's Advocate Do you disagree with the sequence of events? IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The user:Cla68 has taken total ownership of edits they have made on the page Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The following diffs [2] [3] [4] [5] show the edits they have made and the talk page discussions listed above show the level of ownership they are taking.
They are referring to to the removal of their edits continuously as "revert warring" and are focusing only on their edits made. They are also placing posts on my talk page claiming that I am engaging in a revert war [6] [7] [8]
Please see
here for the response to diff 24
I also stand by ever single edit that is being claimed to be a revert warring Cla68 Clearly has not read
WP:BRD and
WP:Bold. To claim any of those edits are Revert warring is total lunacy just incredible. The majority of those edits have either remained removed or a discussion has been happening afterwards. Also I stand by the removal of poorly added information which is of little relevance to Wikipedia, regardless of if the information has a source or not. Just because information has a source does not guarantee its inclusion as this is not a newspaper or a collection of all information. The articles must give balanced point of view and the edits which have been highlighted either show a removal of biased coverage of an argument on one side to give balance or show the removal of completely irrelevant information.
As for the diff on the 2012 Olympians competing under the Olympic flag the actual edit summary says there is an ongoing discussion which can be seen here and here.
I would like to say that haveing looked at Cla68s block log this is not the first instance of Cla68 being overtly disruptive with regards to other editors, who are editing "normally" and within the agreed policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Cla68 has been banned on more than one occasion for disruptive editing and this again is more disruptive editing. This user is beginning to damage the integrity of the project as they have decided that their edits are theirs and how dare anyone even say they are not perfect. This is classic ownership and is becoming highly disruptive. Sport and politics ( talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That has no relevance to this discussion what so ever, as it is purely based on the content and is in a discussion. You are simply not liking another user challenging your edits or other edits you like and changing/removing them. There is also no "ordering", it is calling the information exactly what it is, wholly irrelevant and that it should not be added. There is nothing of a personal nature in that comment. I can sense the you Cla68 will use a lot of distraction technique to attempt to divert from the disruptive editing you have engaged in. I am also not the only editor saying you are making unfounded claims of revert warring. Sport and politics ( talk) 11:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Editors who refer to edits by others as "total lunacy" tend to be regarded as having pretty dirty hands here - S%P - drop the stick. Collect ( talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for the use of the language but the levels of frustration with this user are very very high. Could you please look at the breadth of unfounded and without basis claims which are continually being directed at me by Cla68. I also dispute I have "dirty hands" here all I have been doing is normal editing. Not once has Cla68 been able to back up any of their claims of revert warring, despite being asked to do so and have had it pointed out that what they are claiming to be revert warring is nothing of the sort. Sport and politics ( talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am smelling something up here that is serious clutching at straws Revert Warring is the addition and removal of the same information. Making multiple edits to an article is not revert warring also Cla68 has been nothing but uncivil in making the spurious claims. Sport and politics ( talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am finding your contributions very suspicious as you are ignoring that the edits I have made have been nothing but general editing. To claim those diffs are in any way revert warring is very very curious. The user Cla68 just has a serious problem with their edits being modified or changed and to claim that changing and removing poorly worded and not relevant information is revert warring strikes me as incredibly bizarre. especially as the information modified has been different information from different sections of the article. I am finding this very bizarre. Sport and politics ( talk) 21:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Wikipedia goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article. Sport and politics ( talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling a serious look at what Wikipedia is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Wikipedia Wikiepdia. Sport and politics ( talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics ( talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am writing this to you tonight because of repeated tagging and disputes between myself and
User:TheRedPenOfDoom regarding articles I am writing. I have stated many times that the articles contain seed material and I am working to get more contributions from subject matter experts, academics and the interested public at large, but this user keeps insisting that I am trying to keep my "non-encyclopedic" articles locked down and essentially assuming that it will not resolve itself on it own.
I have asked this user multiple times to leave me and the articles I am working on alone to no avail. Each request for them to back off brings another barrage of finger pointing and false accusations.
Please advise me how to handle the situation so that I may continue my writing in peace.
Jssteil ( talk) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Since making edits to articles on several Chicago television stations in early July, I have run into a dispute with
DreamMcQueen. The dispute began with edits to the lead sections of the articles of
WGN-TV,
WWME-CA,
WLS-TV and the like, to which DreamMcQueen promptly reverted due to the edits not being up to his tastes; though they fall within
WikiProject Television Stations article structure guidelines, particularly the note that all TV articles require a "good introduction" (which in mine, includes a properly prosed first line, mentions of physical and virtual channels, location of transmitter and studio location [not mentioning the specific postal addresses for either], and a fairly short list of syndicated programs the station runs (carefully trying not to violate certain
WP:NOT rules for the latter by omitting airtimes for syndicated programs and typically limiting the number of listed titles to no more than five or six), DreamMcQueen has unfairly criticized them as being extraneous, even though the type of information I included is featured in other articles.
Among the criticisms that DreamMcQueen has levied include
this message left on my talk page on July 9:
"I'm gonna write the same thing to you that I did to another user: the quality of your edits are, in my opinion, poor and contribute very little. This is nothing personal against you. However, you go from insisting on listing every station that is scheduled to carry the new Arsenio Hall Show next year to taking a page from the
Neutralhomer/
Strafidlo template with wordy and overly technical introductory paragraphs on those Chicago television station articles. Before you label someone as a "vandal" and "disruptive" and issue threatening stop warnings (as you did me, which I promptly deleted from my talk page), perhaps you should get pointers on how to make more constructive contributions and not mimic someone else, whether it be a industry website or another editor."
I want to stress that I based my edits around
Neutralhomer and
Strafidlo's, not to copy them, but because their edits had better prose, were properly worded, were informative without crossing the line into miscellanei and were in general, better edited, especially in comparison to my own edits (I admit my editing style wasn't as great when I started here six years ago, but I have gotten better.
Compare this sentence:
"'''KMBC-TV,
channel 9, is a television station affiliated with the
ABC television network, located in
Kansas City, Missouri. KMBC-TV is owned by
Hearst Television and its studios are located near
Swope Park in Kansas City, Missouri. The station's transmitter is located in eastern Kansas City, near the
Blue River. KMBC-TV also serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for
St. Joseph, Missouri, available over-the-air in most of the market and on local satellite providers and select cable systems such as
Suddenlink; this is despite the presence of
KQTV (channel 2), which is the market's official ABC affiliate and is carried alongside KMBC on some cable systems in the market."
With this one, edited by me:
"KMBC-TV is the
ABC-
affiliated
television station for the
Kansas City metropolitan area that is
licensed to the
Missouri side. It broadcasts a
high-definition
digital signal on
virtual channel 9.1 (or
UHF digital channel 29) from a transmitter at the East 23rd Street/Topping Avenue intersection in
Kansas City, Missouri's
Blue Valley section. Owned by
Hearst Television, KMBC-TV is
sister to
CW affiliate
KCWE and the two outlets share studios on Winchester Avenue in the city's
Swope Park
Ridge-Winchester section along
I-435. Although the
Saint Joseph
market has an ABC affiliate of its own in the form of
KQTV (channel 2), KMBC serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for the area as its transmitter provides a city-grade off-air signal in St. Joseph proper, and it is available on cable and satellite in the area alongside KQTV."
In regards to the Arsenio Hall show mention, I did not list all the stations that picked up the program, I merely mentioned a few on one edit, and then Dream McQueen reverted this edit:
"On June 18, 2012, Hall and
CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by
CBS Television Stations,
Tribune Broadcasting (which will have priority clearance over CBS-owned
CW,
MyNetworkTV and
independent stations in six markets, including
New York City and
Los Angeles) and
Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program", and reverted it twice (the other was an undo by
ShawnHill of the revert) to:
"On June 18, 2012, Hall and
CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by
CBS Television Stations,
Tribune Broadcasting, and
Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program."
DreamMcQueen ignored the fact that the mention of Tribune having priority clearance of the program over CBS in some markets was explicity implied in the reference that I included from
Broadcasting & Cable.
The fact that DreamMcQueen has reverted articles on stations from three different cities suggests a troll/vandal characteristic, by tracking down someone else's edits and them willfully reverting them with little credence to manual of style. I have also looked into whether other users have run into problems with this user and came upon instances of edit wars with other users such as Fairlyoddparents1234. Unfortunately, it seems that DreamMcQueen is more than willing to criticize others for how they edit rather than abiding by Wikipedia guidelines and ignore what the consensus suggests for his own personal style that is making it hard for others to edit on certain pages without worrying that their work will be unfoundedly rejected because the editor chooses to use a demeanor when editing as if claiming ownership of articles. When a message sent by DreamMcQueen was sent to my talk page on July 30, I just chose not to respond back even though my gut told me to explain to him calmly (as I did before) that his edits don't goes against the consensus, because there is just no getting through to him/her. I need this issue settled in a manner that is concise and thorough, so I can continue to edit these TV station articles without worry of unworthy rejections of my edit submissions. TVtonightOKC ( talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Morrigan seems to think that it is reasonable to call other editors "Holocaust deniers"
[26] using "Apologetics for murderers." And
[27] "And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything
I had asked politely at [28] for a redaction.
TFD also asked for a redaction at [29] as well. Those acquainted will surmise that TFD and I are not in any way in the category of "Holocaust deniers" or "Neo-Nazis."
Mr. Morrigan has several times been mentioned on noticeboards for this sort of attack. Including routinely calling other editors "Holocaust deniers" and the like. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#Incivility_from_User:Bryonmorrigan], [30], [31] etc.
I suggest that Mr. Morrigan be advised in no uncertain terms to redact all such attacks, to apologize for all such attacks, and be advised that any further such attacks will be strictly dealt with by the community. Collect ( talk) 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not seeing personal attacks. Am seeing overwrought rhetoric. I'd encourage all involved editors to stop discussing other, stop discussing motivations of editors, and try to come to consensus on the content. I see an RFC has been started (good) but has degraded into more back and forth (not so good). Perhaps you could all take a break and wait for some other editors to comment? Nobody Ent 23:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago, a tendentious editor (now blocked with his sock, as can be seen here and here if anyone wants to make sure I'm not lying) was reported on ANI for refusing to discuss his fraudulent and fringe edits after a many dozen warnings. Bwilkins discouraged anyone from blocking the editor, as if refusing to discuss anything after dozen final warnings wasn't enough rope to hang him with. After about a week, the tendentious editor went back to his usual game, finally earning a block on the 26.
On July 25 (over a week ago), I left a messages on Bwilkin's talk page asking him to take responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him. Under his sockpuppet account EatsShootsAndLeaves (DangerousPanda), he left a message on my talk page saying that Bwilkins "cannot" make the block as "they're" away. I changed the message from a request to an update, and dropped the issue. Yesterday (a week after I left the message), after it was all over with, EatsShootsAndLeaves digs the issue up and accuses me of bad faith.
WP:AGF says we're to assume that a person's intentions are good. I have. WP:AGF does not say that we cannot point out mistakes, and it does not say that we cannot question an administrator's course of action. That is what I did. AGF does, however, say we are not to make unfounded accusations of bad faith. That is what Bwilkins did.
I pointed this out, and asked why he logged in as someone else to say that he could not (not just would not, but "cannot") make the block, even though he could log in. I did not question his intentions, I assumed that he is acting in a way he believed would help the site. I said I believe he made a mistake. In response to this, he continued to accuse me of bad faith.
The discussion, before it was partly removed (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his right), and archived (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his rights), may be found here.
As I said before and again, I left a message a week ago pointing out a mistake, questioning a course of action, and (after he dug it up) eventually his responsibility, but at no point did I question his intentions to help the site. He was totally welcome to leave it alone, but he dug it up with an accusation of bad faith, and responded to defense against such accusations and questions about his capacity as an assault on his intentions.
Since he appears to decide that anything I post that he doesn't like is an accusation of bad faith, I quit posting on his page. Since he made that clear while continuing to accuse me of bad faith, I decided to come here.
Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I truly have no need to respond here, let me just state the following:
There's certainly no place on this project for badgering an admin for having done the right thing, simply because they didn't like it. Nothing but bad faith towards either the now-blocked editor, Wikipedia's goals, or me. I disengaged, and advised the editor to stay off my talkpages if this continued bad faith was still their goal - as such, they should have had someone else notify me of this WQA filing, as it's mere proof of their continued bad faith. dangerous panda 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nobody Ents perspective in that the alternative account isn't clearly marked enough (and his comments refer to himself in the third person), but that Ian Thompson just needs to let the issue go: that includes not interacting with bwilkins when you didn't need to. I also think Ian Thompson should be careful about calling something a sockpuppet, and also that requesting an admin who acted reasonably by not blocking another user to "admit" a mistake and perform the block himself is unnecessarily adversarial. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
We had some content disputes previously. But my contention is regarding the uncivil comments of Snowcream, especially these two: 1 and 2. He accuses other editors or authors with Christian names as fanatics or evangelists which I tried to correct in the 1st occasion itself (see my reply). However, the second time he has personally attacked, equating me with fanatics, without any provocation in that line. In fact, my modifications in Kerala were according to the guidance I got from User:Drmies on my request here. Now, his comment has really hurted me and hence I'm here. I'm not asking to punish him, but he should be corrected and brought to the world of civility. AshLey Msg 09:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
AshLey Msg 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Claims were made in the
Thomas Sowell article which were violative of
WP:BLP (contentious claims about a person sourced solely to an editorial opinion of MMfA, and not labelled as an opinion, but claimed as a fact in Wikipedia's voice) and where a discussion at
WP:BLP/N resulted in agreement on that point.
Scjessey then proceeds to call me a liar repeatedly, even using the "BS" word in his vituperation.
He stated: No such discussion exists on BLP/N, so basically you are using lies to push your POV at [40]
He templates me at [41] which I found interesting as my reverts per the requirements of WP:BLP were two in number and absolutely per WP:BLP as noted at BLP/N.
He also said at [42] No such discussion took place so I reverted the edit. Using lies to force a POV is not good And at [43] Bullshit, Collect. The "finding" is that there was no finding. It descended into a stupid argument. The majority of people supported MMfA being used, however, so now you can add edit warring to lying and POV pushing.
In short, he seems to think that calling another editor a liar is acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, and leaving templates on regulars is also a bit weird per normal WQA.
I asked him to redact at [44] which is temperately worded Your accusation of lies' I suggest you redact, as that is a personal attack. Cheers
I know this is political silly season, but his edit war to include material which fails WP:BLP and WP:V (it asserts as "fact" an opinion from a group known to have political opinions on a column which a clear reading shows not to make any explicit "comparison" (Scjessey says it is enough to read an "implicit" comparison <g>) and asserts such opinions about several living persons) should be noted here, as well as his porpensity to ignore WP:AGF and WP:NPA inter alia. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Appending: [45] a long screed wherein he displays intenperate views of living people (including labelling tham as "idiot"s) and accusing me of "too involved in this to think rationally" - he needs a bit of a gallon of tea as a minimum when his response to a polite request to redact an attack gets into this length on his part. Cheers. BTW, since others also find it a "BLP issue" I think you might like to listen to them as well. Collect ( talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ -- As I iterated above and on the article talk page, and at BLP/N etc., MMfA's opinions must be labelled as opinion -- it is the labelling of their opinion as a fact in Wikipedia's voice which everyone objects to. Collect ( talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ again - the "misleading edit summary" was exactly correct and accurate -- that you accuse me of "changing my story" is simply digging your own hole deeper word-by-word. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: Scjessey seems quite unable to heed what everyone has said [46]
Which I think certeinly is, at the least, ill-mannered, and showing continual cobative behaviour here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I made good faith reverts to the tree article, accompanied by a lengthy description of why I made the edits n the article's talk page. This poster persistently reverted while refusing to discuss the issue, in contravention of WP:BRD. In an attempt to achieve consensus I raised the issue on his User Talk page, only to be called a jackass.
This is the Wikipedia community's response to being personally insulted when attempting to achieve consensus? Lame jokes? Clearly my attempts t resolving this issue here have been a total waste of time. I will know better next time. 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon ( talk • contribs)
I have made some script-assisted ref cleaning edits to Curiosity rover article (ex. [47] and [48]), focusing on reducing clutter through list-defined references and fixing bare URLs through WP:REFLINKS. BatteryIncluded did a partial revert of my edit, [49], created a badly messed up version of this Main Page featured (In the News) article ( [50]) that persisted for about twenty minutes before his edits were in turn reverted by another editor.
The reason I am posting here is that BatteryIncluded besides the damaging reverts posted a disparaging comment on my talk page "you took the time and effort messing with the references and violating not only common sense- but the MOS"... "it is not your talk page which you can load with flashy tricks and exentricities disregarding the effort of others". While not very civil, this would not make me post here, butr afer I responded on his talk in a civil fashion [51] his second response escalated a higher level of incivility with "we have a cowboy that not just ignores the rules but denies they exist"...There is nothing beneficial in your little bot/edit. I suggest you dedicate to articles to your caliber such as Betty Crocker. There, you can place your flashy bulshit and Hello Kittys in the reference section." Using disparaging, uncivil and vulgar language to offend editors ("articles of your caliber"), telling editors to leave an article, violates not only WP:CIV but also WP:NPA, and considering that those comments came after that editors' own edits messed up a main page article, coupled with misunderstanding of policy (while claiming that I am the one who does not understand it) makes this case one where I think an official talk page warning (for incivility, at least) is warranted.
On an ending note, BatteryIncluded was blocked once for incivility, through it is an old block (2009), and anyway, I don't think the above is a blockable offense. A warning should suffice, I feel. Alternatively, I'll gladly accept an apology, upon which I will remove my request for an official warning. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I did try earlier today to strongly encourage his participation here. He simply deleted it from his talkpage. WP:BATTLE issues it appears dangerous panda 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. At this point, I feel singled out and piled on.
I ran into these people while working on adding citations and correcting provable bias in political articles, which led to some frenzied reverts and fruitless
WP:DRN attempts. Things took a turn for the worse when Lionelt publicly discussed his plans to get me removed from Wikipedia.
[52] To show that this is an active plan, not some innocent editorializing, he followed up with an attempt to get me blocked for what looked to him like edit warring
[53]. This flopped for lack of substance, but one of my comments was misconstrued and used by Belchfire as the basis for a spurious ANI claim
[54]. (Correction: Belchfire didn't file the "insult" ANI, he just piled on.) The pièce de résistance was Lionelt's next 3RR report, which falsely claimed I hit 4RR
[55]. Even though the claim was false (and even after I revealed it to be false), the block stuck.
[56]
Since then, I've barely edited at all, except in talk pages, but that hasn't slowed their efforts. I noticed ViiriK talking about me, but said nothing until the conversation switched to openly conspiring to harm an editor who had supported me [57]. After I warned their victim, ViriiK struck back with an ANI [58], which got him nowhere. The latest attack, this time by Belchfire, is a secret fishing expedition claiming I'm a sock puppet [59], which will flop soon enough.
Throughout all this, the three have acted as a bloc. They speak to each other and their allies in code phrases -- "a certain person", "M", and "our mutual friend" -- like they're stock characters in some badly-written spy novel, slinking around in alleys to exchange attache cases packed with military secrets. Their choice of covert language reveals that they know that what they're doing would not be seen as admirable. They've been absolutely unrelenting in their repeated attempts to get rid of me, and I think it's fair to say that WP:AGF is no longer relevant. While they've attacked me many times, and had only one small success so far, it's a game of odds and it's only a matter of time before they fill my score sheet with ever-lengthening blocks, an assigned mentor [60], some topic and interaction blocks, and eventually a community ban. To remind you, this is exactly what Lionelt promised to do in the first place.
Just for contrast, consider that I haven't filed anything heavier than a few WP:DRN attempts that got mobbed to death by them. I'm not trying to make trouble, I'm trying to get them off my back so that I don't have to spend all of my time defending myself against false accusations and a concerted attempt to blacken my record and get me pushed out of Wikipedia. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sure does look like they're out to get me. :-)
I'm here on the advice [61] of User:Alanscottwalker, in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to WP:ANI or even WP:RFCC. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said, this just isn't stopping. Just now, Belchfire posted a "friendly" message [88] to Guy, providing ammunition against me in the form of a post that can be taken out of context. On the one hand, Belchfire studiously refuses to respond to anything I say on talk pages, conveniently avoiding any points I make that he can't handle. On the other, he talks about me behind my back, again in cryptic little ways. This is not my imagination here; there's a pattern of stalking. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Still-24-45-42-125. #3, I don't think there's any way presently to remove things in the block log. I myself have an unfair block from SlimVirgin, who made an assumption about me without proper evidence, but it is there and I live with that 'stain', as you put it. #4 is something that is very much in your own hands. My only recommendation is that you do your best to stay cool and respond calmly. Learn to discuss before editing or edit with caution and revert more than once at your peril. Its more tedious, but safer, to just debate an edit than to make an edit and revert and revert.
OK, so I'd like to hear from the other editors now. He's clearly enumerated what he'd like to see from Wikipedia, and for simplicity's sake, let's focus on his top two items. Lionelt, ViriiK, and Belchfire, can you guys see his perspective on this and work toward some resolution? Maybe just take a break from each other for a bit, and maybe take a break from whatever articles seem to be causing the most contention? -- Avanu ( talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Still-24, welcome to wikipedia. It's kind of a messy place. Sorry. The written guidelines/policies mostly describe established practice rather the prescribe a strict protocol. As mentioned, block logs aren't redacted (I've argued for such in the past and been totally shot down). I'll reiterate DB's reference to WP:NOJUSTICE I wrote the original draft. The good news (from a certain point of view) is no one can get you blocked. Whether you get blocked again or not depends on what you do, not what someone else does. The best response to cabals and folks talking behind your back is to ignore them. Nobody Ent 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and close this thread? It is serving no useful purpose at this point. -- Avanu ( talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Still24 has apparently learned less than nothing per such comments on an article talk page as "Collect, as others have pointed out at length, your research skills are apparently lacking and you have some aversion to answering direct questions. Is social conservatism authoritarian and homophobic? Well, do we have any reliable sources saying it is? We do, and many. Do we have any reliable sources bothering to dispute this? Apparently not. Based on our sources, this is a closed issue." and "As usual, your summary is blatantly false. Not a single source was found to dispute the mainstream understanding, bolstered by scientific research, that social conservatism is authoritarian. When in doubt he attacks the other editor, and avers that he knows the truth. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) He is also forumshopping on any issue he can vide [101], [102], accusations that Lionel and Belchfire are socks at [103], and so on. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire seemed to think that I was talking to him rather than Lionelt, so he said:
I then responded:
In other words, I wasn't talking to or about him: Lionelt was the one who edit-warred, and that's what got the entire page protected. Now, if you want to pretend this is about sock accusations, go for it, but in full context, your interpretation is plainly wrong. This is true of most, if not all, of your interpretations above. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:Lionelt#Dealing with conflicts involving user behavior. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled upon all this because it showed up at one of the articles I watch. It seems to me that there is a certain slap-happy sloppiness manifested in a characteristic alternation between two extremes on certain conservatism-related articles, where the liberal editors put in exaggerated versions of perhaps genuine claims about the subject, and conservative editors react by removing the claim entirely. So far I'm finding that an accurate statement would mention whatever issue is being argued over, but in a much more nuanced, qualified, and in some cases minimized way. Particularly on the liberal side of this there is a careless "everyone knows conservatives are scum" culture warrior quality to the arguments and edit summaries; the bit quoted by Collect above is actually better behaved than average. The conservatives in this need to be less combative. In the end, it would save everyone a great deal of trouble to put down the triumphalism and the endless arguments over bad faith. Mangoe ( talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer is over-personalising a rather standard discussion at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WHJG-LP, and on my talk page openly says he will use ad hominems attacks and make things personal User_talk:IRWolfie-#Poor_Man.27s_Talk_Back. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
My first time having to do this but I would like a discussion on the uncivil behavior of Editor Niteshift36. To quote some of his posts, "Since you are apparently struggling with reading comprehension," "If it offends you, that's your problem. " and "First off, don't tell me about my bias. You don't know half of what you think you know. " he needs to be reigned in, just because a few of us do not agree with him does not mean he can abuse us.
Warcraftninjas (
talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have edited this report for format only, no endorsement of the matter reported should be implied. Thanks! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
— adj , snarkier , snarkiest informal unpleasant and scornful
[C20: from sarcastic + nasty ] and sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner
so yeah, you apologize for your uncivility and I will just move on. I do not know why you think that "seasoned" editors are superior to any other editors. By the way using one example of your nasty hurtful tone is cute. You should read what you write before you press save page. Warcraftninjas ( talk) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Drmies. Niteshift doesn't seem to be making actionable uncivil comments, and Warcraft seems to be making ruder comments, but still not really actionable (but darn close (though the talk page edits are almost definitely uncivil)). Let's close this frivolous complaint. LedRush ( talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.
or should I go to formal mediation I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.
Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?
Too much information and way too biased
I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
87.114.156.18 ( talk) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anxiety_disorder&action=history
I have tried to add references to an author who wrote in the seventies. Her work has not been surpassed and is not the sort of work that will move forward from decade to decade. Her work gives life transforming help to sufferers of anxiety disorder. Other editors have said that the references were "not particularly useful" and "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article" and "fails MEDRS and unnecessary"
Please note that it was only since I added a third reference that the second reference was rejected. The 1973 BMJ article had been part of the article for months before it was removed after I added the third.
I have written the following replies to Jmh649 and also list some questions:
1. (After "not particularly useful") Who on earth do you think you are to say what is particularly useful. You are not the person chosen to judge this. Wikipedia is for anyone in the world to read. The 2 additions I have made are both from a peer reviewed scientific expert in the field. I have had anxiety disorder - my life has been severely plagued by it. The books and articles that have been of far greater use to me than any other I have read on the subject have been by (the now late) Claire Weekes. Her ideas are not high science (fancy drugs/brain studies etc.) but provide amazingly insightful observations and have an amazing understanding of the psychology of the sufferer. She had anxiety disorder herself. Being highly intelligent, she was able to observe herself and work out extremely effective but commonsensical methods for coping with the illness. I am a scientist myself and have done a lot of reading on the subject - including a lot of the high science. However I know that any sufferer reading this Wikipedia article will have their life transformed by reading Claire Weekes's articles and books. This article is not just for the scientific "experts" in the field. It is for anybody in the world who wants to know about anxiety disorder. If they are sufferers, they will find the references to Claire Weekes work far more useful than anything else in the article. This article is not just for medical/scientific experts in the more technical parts of the field. The irony of your comment is that the exact opposite is true! What I have added to the article, I know as a sufferer of extreme lifelong anxiety disorder, is the most useful information in the article for any sufferer of the illness!
2. (After "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article")
Why should we should be using secondary sources from the last 10 years? People writing in 1973 had as much to say as those writing today. The field has got more technical since those days and experts may not be interested in referencing Claire Weekes any more - so I doubt there are many secondary sources from the last 10 years. However as I have said, her work is still as highly relevant today as at any time. Her work was so good that no one has added anything to replace it since. It is not the sort of scientific field that advances greatly from decade to decade. I see you are a young medical doctor. What is said in the article is extremely useful for sufferers. I expect that, as you are a high achieving young man, you have not spent a lot of time being ill with anxiety disorder. I can tell you that it is one of the most devastating illnesses of all. For example, to give you an idea of how awful the illness is - paraphrasing a consultant psychiatrist "I know people with "locked in syndrome" who still enjoy life enough to want to live, many people with depression/anxiety do not want to live" By undoing my edits you are depriving people around the world of vital information which will transform their lives. I hope you went into medicine to help people. You are doing exactly the opposite by undoing my edits. Please have some humility and consider that perhaps you as a medical doctor, do not have all the answers, and may be wrong in removing the information I have added. I think your medical training, and perhaps lack of experience, is making you blind to what I am trying to do.
3. Could you also explain why I was not allowed to undo 3 edits but Jmh649 is. You can probably tell I am not very experienced on wikipedia.
4. How have I failed MEDRS? And isn't using the letter of the law sometimes going against the spirit of Wikipedia - to make useful information available to a worldwide audience. If my reference is life transforming, why should being old stop it being available to wikipedia readers?
To Jamie (couldn't add my question to your talk page for some reason): To do WQA you need consensus? I'm (obviously) fairly new to Wikipedia. I read the following on the WQA page:
What Wikiquette assistance can do:
I didn't see concensus mentioned here. Where is that mentioned?
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.156.18 ( talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm posting as a mostly uninvolved third-party on this. A SL93 posted at the
Articles for deletion talk page that a user said on an AfD said he was thinking of a phrase that ended with "and the horse you rode in on." SL93 did not disclose which deletion discussion or which user posted it. Jclemens later posted a response that suggested that SL93's weak nomination (which Jclemens has probably never seen) was the reason for the rudeness and it could have been avoided with a better deletion nomination - a classic case of blaming the victim. Jclemens attitude in the post seems to be that experienced Wikipedians are never guilty. Again, I don't know the identity of the user who originally made the rude post on the deletion discussion, and it is clearly unacceptable.
Ego White Tray (
talk) 12:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
* Lugnuts has (sort of) apologised, I suggest it's now best to move on.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I misread.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I followed WP:BEFORE so I thought I was good. SL93 ( talk) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take this elsewhere. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts has made one of several personal attacks amidst a deletion discussion to both me and User:The Rambling Man. The first was calling Rambling a child and telling them to shut it as the "grown-ups are talking". Rambling then responds sarcastically, thanking Lugnuts for his positive contributions. Then Lugnuts calls him an idiot, telling him to not get hit by an imaginary door. Rambling confronts him about this, saying that he shouldn't resort to name-calling and acting like a WP:DICK.
I notified Lugnuts to not make any personal attacks, which he responds by removing the message and calling me a lacky (--> someone's bitch). He then takes it to the Afd again to make a sarcastic comment, it is not clear whether this was directed at me or Rambling. I then finally tell Lugnuts that his presence is not welcome if all he wants to do is insult people. Again, being sarcastic tone and not assuming good faith, he says it's clearly my first time here. Fed up with this, I reply with a rather long response, telling Lugnuts to assume good faith and leave the Afd if all he wants to do is insult people. Lugnuts clearly crossed the line—bullying and making personal attacks are not tolerated in any environment, especially Wikipedia. Till I Go Home 14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the too small heart comment wasn't appropriate. Wikipedia is not black and white but many shades of gray. Lugnuts (I'm pretty sure) has agreed not to use terms like "...and the horse you rode on in" in future discussions. Parsing out which snarky comments are worse than others, or demanding apologies and the like, is simply not useful. I encourage everyone just to drop the discussion and move on. Nobody Ent 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently edited the wiki page of Ravishankar (Spiritual Leader) on his wiki page under a Section heading "Controversy". However, it has been deleted without any reason by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 ( talk • contribs)
Despite fully referencing these few sentences, and using unbiased point of view, an unfriendly person accused me of giving the topic excessive weight.... nonsense because it was only a few sentences in an extensive article, with very carefully chosen words so as not to present the link as a proven theory, but rather a possibility. My edits were then rolled back by said unfriendly person. Why are these people allowed to operate with impunity? It is very off-putting for new users, and there actions are usually highly suspect and aggressive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepi ( talk • contribs)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
User:The Devil's Advocate nominated Krista Branch a few weeks ago. I reviewed the article and cited problems (see the GA1 review on Talk:Krista Branch). User:The Devil's Advocate did not do anything to rectify those problems and complained that they weren't specific enough for his tastes. User:The Devil's Advocate attempted to obstruct edits to rectify said problems. On 25 July 2012 I failed the GA nomination after several days where User:The Devil's Advocate did not respond to the GA review or edit the article to improve it per my review. On 26 July 2012, User:The Devil's Advocate renominated for GA. Personally, I believe it was intended to be spiteful and implied "I will ignore User:ColonelHenry's review and act as if it didn't happen." This behavior is disrespectful to other editors and seems to be an end-run designed to subvert the GA review process.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 03:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
@The Devil's Advocate Do you disagree with the sequence of events? IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The user:Cla68 has taken total ownership of edits they have made on the page Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The following diffs [2] [3] [4] [5] show the edits they have made and the talk page discussions listed above show the level of ownership they are taking.
They are referring to to the removal of their edits continuously as "revert warring" and are focusing only on their edits made. They are also placing posts on my talk page claiming that I am engaging in a revert war [6] [7] [8]
Please see
here for the response to diff 24
I also stand by ever single edit that is being claimed to be a revert warring Cla68 Clearly has not read
WP:BRD and
WP:Bold. To claim any of those edits are Revert warring is total lunacy just incredible. The majority of those edits have either remained removed or a discussion has been happening afterwards. Also I stand by the removal of poorly added information which is of little relevance to Wikipedia, regardless of if the information has a source or not. Just because information has a source does not guarantee its inclusion as this is not a newspaper or a collection of all information. The articles must give balanced point of view and the edits which have been highlighted either show a removal of biased coverage of an argument on one side to give balance or show the removal of completely irrelevant information.
As for the diff on the 2012 Olympians competing under the Olympic flag the actual edit summary says there is an ongoing discussion which can be seen here and here.
I would like to say that haveing looked at Cla68s block log this is not the first instance of Cla68 being overtly disruptive with regards to other editors, who are editing "normally" and within the agreed policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Cla68 has been banned on more than one occasion for disruptive editing and this again is more disruptive editing. This user is beginning to damage the integrity of the project as they have decided that their edits are theirs and how dare anyone even say they are not perfect. This is classic ownership and is becoming highly disruptive. Sport and politics ( talk) 10:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That has no relevance to this discussion what so ever, as it is purely based on the content and is in a discussion. You are simply not liking another user challenging your edits or other edits you like and changing/removing them. There is also no "ordering", it is calling the information exactly what it is, wholly irrelevant and that it should not be added. There is nothing of a personal nature in that comment. I can sense the you Cla68 will use a lot of distraction technique to attempt to divert from the disruptive editing you have engaged in. I am also not the only editor saying you are making unfounded claims of revert warring. Sport and politics ( talk) 11:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Editors who refer to edits by others as "total lunacy" tend to be regarded as having pretty dirty hands here - S%P - drop the stick. Collect ( talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for the use of the language but the levels of frustration with this user are very very high. Could you please look at the breadth of unfounded and without basis claims which are continually being directed at me by Cla68. I also dispute I have "dirty hands" here all I have been doing is normal editing. Not once has Cla68 been able to back up any of their claims of revert warring, despite being asked to do so and have had it pointed out that what they are claiming to be revert warring is nothing of the sort. Sport and politics ( talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am smelling something up here that is serious clutching at straws Revert Warring is the addition and removal of the same information. Making multiple edits to an article is not revert warring also Cla68 has been nothing but uncivil in making the spurious claims. Sport and politics ( talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am finding your contributions very suspicious as you are ignoring that the edits I have made have been nothing but general editing. To claim those diffs are in any way revert warring is very very curious. The user Cla68 just has a serious problem with their edits being modified or changed and to claim that changing and removing poorly worded and not relevant information is revert warring strikes me as incredibly bizarre. especially as the information modified has been different information from different sections of the article. I am finding this very bizarre. Sport and politics ( talk) 21:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Wikipedia goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article. Sport and politics ( talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling a serious look at what Wikipedia is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Wikipedia Wikiepdia. Sport and politics ( talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics ( talk) 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am writing this to you tonight because of repeated tagging and disputes between myself and
User:TheRedPenOfDoom regarding articles I am writing. I have stated many times that the articles contain seed material and I am working to get more contributions from subject matter experts, academics and the interested public at large, but this user keeps insisting that I am trying to keep my "non-encyclopedic" articles locked down and essentially assuming that it will not resolve itself on it own.
I have asked this user multiple times to leave me and the articles I am working on alone to no avail. Each request for them to back off brings another barrage of finger pointing and false accusations.
Please advise me how to handle the situation so that I may continue my writing in peace.
Jssteil ( talk) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Since making edits to articles on several Chicago television stations in early July, I have run into a dispute with
DreamMcQueen. The dispute began with edits to the lead sections of the articles of
WGN-TV,
WWME-CA,
WLS-TV and the like, to which DreamMcQueen promptly reverted due to the edits not being up to his tastes; though they fall within
WikiProject Television Stations article structure guidelines, particularly the note that all TV articles require a "good introduction" (which in mine, includes a properly prosed first line, mentions of physical and virtual channels, location of transmitter and studio location [not mentioning the specific postal addresses for either], and a fairly short list of syndicated programs the station runs (carefully trying not to violate certain
WP:NOT rules for the latter by omitting airtimes for syndicated programs and typically limiting the number of listed titles to no more than five or six), DreamMcQueen has unfairly criticized them as being extraneous, even though the type of information I included is featured in other articles.
Among the criticisms that DreamMcQueen has levied include
this message left on my talk page on July 9:
"I'm gonna write the same thing to you that I did to another user: the quality of your edits are, in my opinion, poor and contribute very little. This is nothing personal against you. However, you go from insisting on listing every station that is scheduled to carry the new Arsenio Hall Show next year to taking a page from the
Neutralhomer/
Strafidlo template with wordy and overly technical introductory paragraphs on those Chicago television station articles. Before you label someone as a "vandal" and "disruptive" and issue threatening stop warnings (as you did me, which I promptly deleted from my talk page), perhaps you should get pointers on how to make more constructive contributions and not mimic someone else, whether it be a industry website or another editor."
I want to stress that I based my edits around
Neutralhomer and
Strafidlo's, not to copy them, but because their edits had better prose, were properly worded, were informative without crossing the line into miscellanei and were in general, better edited, especially in comparison to my own edits (I admit my editing style wasn't as great when I started here six years ago, but I have gotten better.
Compare this sentence:
"'''KMBC-TV,
channel 9, is a television station affiliated with the
ABC television network, located in
Kansas City, Missouri. KMBC-TV is owned by
Hearst Television and its studios are located near
Swope Park in Kansas City, Missouri. The station's transmitter is located in eastern Kansas City, near the
Blue River. KMBC-TV also serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for
St. Joseph, Missouri, available over-the-air in most of the market and on local satellite providers and select cable systems such as
Suddenlink; this is despite the presence of
KQTV (channel 2), which is the market's official ABC affiliate and is carried alongside KMBC on some cable systems in the market."
With this one, edited by me:
"KMBC-TV is the
ABC-
affiliated
television station for the
Kansas City metropolitan area that is
licensed to the
Missouri side. It broadcasts a
high-definition
digital signal on
virtual channel 9.1 (or
UHF digital channel 29) from a transmitter at the East 23rd Street/Topping Avenue intersection in
Kansas City, Missouri's
Blue Valley section. Owned by
Hearst Television, KMBC-TV is
sister to
CW affiliate
KCWE and the two outlets share studios on Winchester Avenue in the city's
Swope Park
Ridge-Winchester section along
I-435. Although the
Saint Joseph
market has an ABC affiliate of its own in the form of
KQTV (channel 2), KMBC serves as an alternate ABC affiliate for the area as its transmitter provides a city-grade off-air signal in St. Joseph proper, and it is available on cable and satellite in the area alongside KQTV."
In regards to the Arsenio Hall show mention, I did not list all the stations that picked up the program, I merely mentioned a few on one edit, and then Dream McQueen reverted this edit:
"On June 18, 2012, Hall and
CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by
CBS Television Stations,
Tribune Broadcasting (which will have priority clearance over CBS-owned
CW,
MyNetworkTV and
independent stations in six markets, including
New York City and
Los Angeles) and
Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program", and reverted it twice (the other was an undo by
ShawnHill of the revert) to:
"On June 18, 2012, Hall and
CBS Television Distribution (which now owns the Paramount Television library) signed a deal to produce a new late-night talk show, targeted to debut in September 2013. The new program will tentatively air on stations owned by
CBS Television Stations,
Tribune Broadcasting, and
Local TV, in some cases on stations which also carried Hall's original program."
DreamMcQueen ignored the fact that the mention of Tribune having priority clearance of the program over CBS in some markets was explicity implied in the reference that I included from
Broadcasting & Cable.
The fact that DreamMcQueen has reverted articles on stations from three different cities suggests a troll/vandal characteristic, by tracking down someone else's edits and them willfully reverting them with little credence to manual of style. I have also looked into whether other users have run into problems with this user and came upon instances of edit wars with other users such as Fairlyoddparents1234. Unfortunately, it seems that DreamMcQueen is more than willing to criticize others for how they edit rather than abiding by Wikipedia guidelines and ignore what the consensus suggests for his own personal style that is making it hard for others to edit on certain pages without worrying that their work will be unfoundedly rejected because the editor chooses to use a demeanor when editing as if claiming ownership of articles. When a message sent by DreamMcQueen was sent to my talk page on July 30, I just chose not to respond back even though my gut told me to explain to him calmly (as I did before) that his edits don't goes against the consensus, because there is just no getting through to him/her. I need this issue settled in a manner that is concise and thorough, so I can continue to edit these TV station articles without worry of unworthy rejections of my edit submissions. TVtonightOKC ( talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Morrigan seems to think that it is reasonable to call other editors "Holocaust deniers"
[26] using "Apologetics for murderers." And
[27] "And that kind of behavior is exactly the same as saying that the Holocaust didn't happen, or any other acts of murder or atrocity...and you are doing for the same kind of reason. Neo-Nazis do it to make excuses for Nazis. You're doing it to make excuses for Christian Terrorists. So no, I'm not retracting anything
I had asked politely at [28] for a redaction.
TFD also asked for a redaction at [29] as well. Those acquainted will surmise that TFD and I are not in any way in the category of "Holocaust deniers" or "Neo-Nazis."
Mr. Morrigan has several times been mentioned on noticeboards for this sort of attack. Including routinely calling other editors "Holocaust deniers" and the like. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#Incivility_from_User:Bryonmorrigan], [30], [31] etc.
I suggest that Mr. Morrigan be advised in no uncertain terms to redact all such attacks, to apologize for all such attacks, and be advised that any further such attacks will be strictly dealt with by the community. Collect ( talk) 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not seeing personal attacks. Am seeing overwrought rhetoric. I'd encourage all involved editors to stop discussing other, stop discussing motivations of editors, and try to come to consensus on the content. I see an RFC has been started (good) but has degraded into more back and forth (not so good). Perhaps you could all take a break and wait for some other editors to comment? Nobody Ent 23:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago, a tendentious editor (now blocked with his sock, as can be seen here and here if anyone wants to make sure I'm not lying) was reported on ANI for refusing to discuss his fraudulent and fringe edits after a many dozen warnings. Bwilkins discouraged anyone from blocking the editor, as if refusing to discuss anything after dozen final warnings wasn't enough rope to hang him with. After about a week, the tendentious editor went back to his usual game, finally earning a block on the 26.
On July 25 (over a week ago), I left a messages on Bwilkin's talk page asking him to take responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him. Under his sockpuppet account EatsShootsAndLeaves (DangerousPanda), he left a message on my talk page saying that Bwilkins "cannot" make the block as "they're" away. I changed the message from a request to an update, and dropped the issue. Yesterday (a week after I left the message), after it was all over with, EatsShootsAndLeaves digs the issue up and accuses me of bad faith.
WP:AGF says we're to assume that a person's intentions are good. I have. WP:AGF does not say that we cannot point out mistakes, and it does not say that we cannot question an administrator's course of action. That is what I did. AGF does, however, say we are not to make unfounded accusations of bad faith. That is what Bwilkins did.
I pointed this out, and asked why he logged in as someone else to say that he could not (not just would not, but "cannot") make the block, even though he could log in. I did not question his intentions, I assumed that he is acting in a way he believed would help the site. I said I believe he made a mistake. In response to this, he continued to accuse me of bad faith.
The discussion, before it was partly removed (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his right), and archived (his rights) with another accusation of bad faith (not his rights), may be found here.
As I said before and again, I left a message a week ago pointing out a mistake, questioning a course of action, and (after he dug it up) eventually his responsibility, but at no point did I question his intentions to help the site. He was totally welcome to leave it alone, but he dug it up with an accusation of bad faith, and responded to defense against such accusations and questions about his capacity as an assault on his intentions.
Since he appears to decide that anything I post that he doesn't like is an accusation of bad faith, I quit posting on his page. Since he made that clear while continuing to accuse me of bad faith, I decided to come here.
Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I truly have no need to respond here, let me just state the following:
There's certainly no place on this project for badgering an admin for having done the right thing, simply because they didn't like it. Nothing but bad faith towards either the now-blocked editor, Wikipedia's goals, or me. I disengaged, and advised the editor to stay off my talkpages if this continued bad faith was still their goal - as such, they should have had someone else notify me of this WQA filing, as it's mere proof of their continued bad faith. dangerous panda 23:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nobody Ents perspective in that the alternative account isn't clearly marked enough (and his comments refer to himself in the third person), but that Ian Thompson just needs to let the issue go: that includes not interacting with bwilkins when you didn't need to. I also think Ian Thompson should be careful about calling something a sockpuppet, and also that requesting an admin who acted reasonably by not blocking another user to "admit" a mistake and perform the block himself is unnecessarily adversarial. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
We had some content disputes previously. But my contention is regarding the uncivil comments of Snowcream, especially these two: 1 and 2. He accuses other editors or authors with Christian names as fanatics or evangelists which I tried to correct in the 1st occasion itself (see my reply). However, the second time he has personally attacked, equating me with fanatics, without any provocation in that line. In fact, my modifications in Kerala were according to the guidance I got from User:Drmies on my request here. Now, his comment has really hurted me and hence I'm here. I'm not asking to punish him, but he should be corrected and brought to the world of civility. AshLey Msg 09:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
AshLey Msg 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Claims were made in the
Thomas Sowell article which were violative of
WP:BLP (contentious claims about a person sourced solely to an editorial opinion of MMfA, and not labelled as an opinion, but claimed as a fact in Wikipedia's voice) and where a discussion at
WP:BLP/N resulted in agreement on that point.
Scjessey then proceeds to call me a liar repeatedly, even using the "BS" word in his vituperation.
He stated: No such discussion exists on BLP/N, so basically you are using lies to push your POV at [40]
He templates me at [41] which I found interesting as my reverts per the requirements of WP:BLP were two in number and absolutely per WP:BLP as noted at BLP/N.
He also said at [42] No such discussion took place so I reverted the edit. Using lies to force a POV is not good And at [43] Bullshit, Collect. The "finding" is that there was no finding. It descended into a stupid argument. The majority of people supported MMfA being used, however, so now you can add edit warring to lying and POV pushing.
In short, he seems to think that calling another editor a liar is acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia, and leaving templates on regulars is also a bit weird per normal WQA.
I asked him to redact at [44] which is temperately worded Your accusation of lies' I suggest you redact, as that is a personal attack. Cheers
I know this is political silly season, but his edit war to include material which fails WP:BLP and WP:V (it asserts as "fact" an opinion from a group known to have political opinions on a column which a clear reading shows not to make any explicit "comparison" (Scjessey says it is enough to read an "implicit" comparison <g>) and asserts such opinions about several living persons) should be noted here, as well as his porpensity to ignore WP:AGF and WP:NPA inter alia. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Appending: [45] a long screed wherein he displays intenperate views of living people (including labelling tham as "idiot"s) and accusing me of "too involved in this to think rationally" - he needs a bit of a gallon of tea as a minimum when his response to a polite request to redact an attack gets into this length on his part. Cheers. BTW, since others also find it a "BLP issue" I think you might like to listen to them as well. Collect ( talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ -- As I iterated above and on the article talk page, and at BLP/N etc., MMfA's opinions must be labelled as opinion -- it is the labelling of their opinion as a fact in Wikipedia's voice which everyone objects to. Collect ( talk) 15:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) @SCJ again - the "misleading edit summary" was exactly correct and accurate -- that you accuse me of "changing my story" is simply digging your own hole deeper word-by-word. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: Scjessey seems quite unable to heed what everyone has said [46]
Which I think certeinly is, at the least, ill-mannered, and showing continual cobative behaviour here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 20:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I made good faith reverts to the tree article, accompanied by a lengthy description of why I made the edits n the article's talk page. This poster persistently reverted while refusing to discuss the issue, in contravention of WP:BRD. In an attempt to achieve consensus I raised the issue on his User Talk page, only to be called a jackass.
This is the Wikipedia community's response to being personally insulted when attempting to achieve consensus? Lame jokes? Clearly my attempts t resolving this issue here have been a total waste of time. I will know better next time. 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Marathon ( talk • contribs)
I have made some script-assisted ref cleaning edits to Curiosity rover article (ex. [47] and [48]), focusing on reducing clutter through list-defined references and fixing bare URLs through WP:REFLINKS. BatteryIncluded did a partial revert of my edit, [49], created a badly messed up version of this Main Page featured (In the News) article ( [50]) that persisted for about twenty minutes before his edits were in turn reverted by another editor.
The reason I am posting here is that BatteryIncluded besides the damaging reverts posted a disparaging comment on my talk page "you took the time and effort messing with the references and violating not only common sense- but the MOS"... "it is not your talk page which you can load with flashy tricks and exentricities disregarding the effort of others". While not very civil, this would not make me post here, butr afer I responded on his talk in a civil fashion [51] his second response escalated a higher level of incivility with "we have a cowboy that not just ignores the rules but denies they exist"...There is nothing beneficial in your little bot/edit. I suggest you dedicate to articles to your caliber such as Betty Crocker. There, you can place your flashy bulshit and Hello Kittys in the reference section." Using disparaging, uncivil and vulgar language to offend editors ("articles of your caliber"), telling editors to leave an article, violates not only WP:CIV but also WP:NPA, and considering that those comments came after that editors' own edits messed up a main page article, coupled with misunderstanding of policy (while claiming that I am the one who does not understand it) makes this case one where I think an official talk page warning (for incivility, at least) is warranted.
On an ending note, BatteryIncluded was blocked once for incivility, through it is an old block (2009), and anyway, I don't think the above is a blockable offense. A warning should suffice, I feel. Alternatively, I'll gladly accept an apology, upon which I will remove my request for an official warning. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I did try earlier today to strongly encourage his participation here. He simply deleted it from his talkpage. WP:BATTLE issues it appears dangerous panda 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm bringing up three people at once, not because they're identical or all of their actions are synchronized, but because they're like-minded fellow travelers who have acted in concert, sometimes tacitly, sometimes (see below!) quite openly, to make things difficult for me. At this point, I feel singled out and piled on.
I ran into these people while working on adding citations and correcting provable bias in political articles, which led to some frenzied reverts and fruitless
WP:DRN attempts. Things took a turn for the worse when Lionelt publicly discussed his plans to get me removed from Wikipedia.
[52] To show that this is an active plan, not some innocent editorializing, he followed up with an attempt to get me blocked for what looked to him like edit warring
[53]. This flopped for lack of substance, but one of my comments was misconstrued and used by Belchfire as the basis for a spurious ANI claim
[54]. (Correction: Belchfire didn't file the "insult" ANI, he just piled on.) The pièce de résistance was Lionelt's next 3RR report, which falsely claimed I hit 4RR
[55]. Even though the claim was false (and even after I revealed it to be false), the block stuck.
[56]
Since then, I've barely edited at all, except in talk pages, but that hasn't slowed their efforts. I noticed ViiriK talking about me, but said nothing until the conversation switched to openly conspiring to harm an editor who had supported me [57]. After I warned their victim, ViriiK struck back with an ANI [58], which got him nowhere. The latest attack, this time by Belchfire, is a secret fishing expedition claiming I'm a sock puppet [59], which will flop soon enough.
Throughout all this, the three have acted as a bloc. They speak to each other and their allies in code phrases -- "a certain person", "M", and "our mutual friend" -- like they're stock characters in some badly-written spy novel, slinking around in alleys to exchange attache cases packed with military secrets. Their choice of covert language reveals that they know that what they're doing would not be seen as admirable. They've been absolutely unrelenting in their repeated attempts to get rid of me, and I think it's fair to say that WP:AGF is no longer relevant. While they've attacked me many times, and had only one small success so far, it's a game of odds and it's only a matter of time before they fill my score sheet with ever-lengthening blocks, an assigned mentor [60], some topic and interaction blocks, and eventually a community ban. To remind you, this is exactly what Lionelt promised to do in the first place.
Just for contrast, consider that I haven't filed anything heavier than a few WP:DRN attempts that got mobbed to death by them. I'm not trying to make trouble, I'm trying to get them off my back so that I don't have to spend all of my time defending myself against false accusations and a concerted attempt to blacken my record and get me pushed out of Wikipedia. Maybe I'm just paranoid, but it sure does look like they're out to get me. :-)
I'm here on the advice [61] of User:Alanscottwalker, in the hopes that this problem can be solved voluntarily, without escalating to WP:ANI or even WP:RFCC. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 19:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As I said, this just isn't stopping. Just now, Belchfire posted a "friendly" message [88] to Guy, providing ammunition against me in the form of a post that can be taken out of context. On the one hand, Belchfire studiously refuses to respond to anything I say on talk pages, conveniently avoiding any points I make that he can't handle. On the other, he talks about me behind my back, again in cryptic little ways. This is not my imagination here; there's a pattern of stalking. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 22:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Still-24-45-42-125. #3, I don't think there's any way presently to remove things in the block log. I myself have an unfair block from SlimVirgin, who made an assumption about me without proper evidence, but it is there and I live with that 'stain', as you put it. #4 is something that is very much in your own hands. My only recommendation is that you do your best to stay cool and respond calmly. Learn to discuss before editing or edit with caution and revert more than once at your peril. Its more tedious, but safer, to just debate an edit than to make an edit and revert and revert.
OK, so I'd like to hear from the other editors now. He's clearly enumerated what he'd like to see from Wikipedia, and for simplicity's sake, let's focus on his top two items. Lionelt, ViriiK, and Belchfire, can you guys see his perspective on this and work toward some resolution? Maybe just take a break from each other for a bit, and maybe take a break from whatever articles seem to be causing the most contention? -- Avanu ( talk) 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Still-24, welcome to wikipedia. It's kind of a messy place. Sorry. The written guidelines/policies mostly describe established practice rather the prescribe a strict protocol. As mentioned, block logs aren't redacted (I've argued for such in the past and been totally shot down). I'll reiterate DB's reference to WP:NOJUSTICE I wrote the original draft. The good news (from a certain point of view) is no one can get you blocked. Whether you get blocked again or not depends on what you do, not what someone else does. The best response to cabals and folks talking behind your back is to ignore them. Nobody Ent 21:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we go ahead and close this thread? It is serving no useful purpose at this point. -- Avanu ( talk) 14:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Still24 has apparently learned less than nothing per such comments on an article talk page as "Collect, as others have pointed out at length, your research skills are apparently lacking and you have some aversion to answering direct questions. Is social conservatism authoritarian and homophobic? Well, do we have any reliable sources saying it is? We do, and many. Do we have any reliable sources bothering to dispute this? Apparently not. Based on our sources, this is a closed issue." and "As usual, your summary is blatantly false. Not a single source was found to dispute the mainstream understanding, bolstered by scientific research, that social conservatism is authoritarian. When in doubt he attacks the other editor, and avers that he knows the truth. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) He is also forumshopping on any issue he can vide [101], [102], accusations that Lionel and Belchfire are socks at [103], and so on. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire seemed to think that I was talking to him rather than Lionelt, so he said:
I then responded:
In other words, I wasn't talking to or about him: Lionelt was the one who edit-warred, and that's what got the entire page protected. Now, if you want to pretend this is about sock accusations, go for it, but in full context, your interpretation is plainly wrong. This is true of most, if not all, of your interpretations above. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:Lionelt#Dealing with conflicts involving user behavior. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled upon all this because it showed up at one of the articles I watch. It seems to me that there is a certain slap-happy sloppiness manifested in a characteristic alternation between two extremes on certain conservatism-related articles, where the liberal editors put in exaggerated versions of perhaps genuine claims about the subject, and conservative editors react by removing the claim entirely. So far I'm finding that an accurate statement would mention whatever issue is being argued over, but in a much more nuanced, qualified, and in some cases minimized way. Particularly on the liberal side of this there is a careless "everyone knows conservatives are scum" culture warrior quality to the arguments and edit summaries; the bit quoted by Collect above is actually better behaved than average. The conservatives in this need to be less combative. In the end, it would save everyone a great deal of trouble to put down the triumphalism and the endless arguments over bad faith. Mangoe ( talk) 19:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer is over-personalising a rather standard discussion at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WHJG-LP, and on my talk page openly says he will use ad hominems attacks and make things personal User_talk:IRWolfie-#Poor_Man.27s_Talk_Back. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
My first time having to do this but I would like a discussion on the uncivil behavior of Editor Niteshift36. To quote some of his posts, "Since you are apparently struggling with reading comprehension," "If it offends you, that's your problem. " and "First off, don't tell me about my bias. You don't know half of what you think you know. " he needs to be reigned in, just because a few of us do not agree with him does not mean he can abuse us.
Warcraftninjas (
talk) 00:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have edited this report for format only, no endorsement of the matter reported should be implied. Thanks! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 00:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
— adj , snarkier , snarkiest informal unpleasant and scornful
[C20: from sarcastic + nasty ] and sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner
so yeah, you apologize for your uncivility and I will just move on. I do not know why you think that "seasoned" editors are superior to any other editors. By the way using one example of your nasty hurtful tone is cute. You should read what you write before you press save page. Warcraftninjas ( talk) 19:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Drmies. Niteshift doesn't seem to be making actionable uncivil comments, and Warcraft seems to be making ruder comments, but still not really actionable (but darn close (though the talk page edits are almost definitely uncivil)). Let's close this frivolous complaint. LedRush ( talk) 20:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have requested the re-opening the Dispute Resolution mechanism for the Misha B article @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 38 as the debate about neutrality has really flared up. on User talk:Steven Zhang who closed the original Dispute Resolution based on my suggestion...no one else in the dispute contributed.
or should I go to formal mediation I make no pretence that I am a fan, I guess the majority articles about (living) people are started and mainly contributed by those who are 'fans', but my contibutions have been done in good faith regards neutrality (as a newbie I have made mistakes...like not spotting blogs) I always take personal criticism maybe too seriously but I have said I welcome genuine verifiable editing contributions from others, even when they remove my contributions, which can be seen from page history.
Why does the Misha article read like a magazine article?
Too much information and way too biased
I would very much welcome a neutral viewpoint from someone not involved in the article.... Zoebuggie☺ whispers 23:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
87.114.156.18 ( talk) 00:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Anxiety_disorder&action=history
I have tried to add references to an author who wrote in the seventies. Her work has not been surpassed and is not the sort of work that will move forward from decade to decade. Her work gives life transforming help to sufferers of anxiety disorder. Other editors have said that the references were "not particularly useful" and "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article" and "fails MEDRS and unnecessary"
Please note that it was only since I added a third reference that the second reference was rejected. The 1973 BMJ article had been part of the article for months before it was removed after I added the third.
I have written the following replies to Jmh649 and also list some questions:
1. (After "not particularly useful") Who on earth do you think you are to say what is particularly useful. You are not the person chosen to judge this. Wikipedia is for anyone in the world to read. The 2 additions I have made are both from a peer reviewed scientific expert in the field. I have had anxiety disorder - my life has been severely plagued by it. The books and articles that have been of far greater use to me than any other I have read on the subject have been by (the now late) Claire Weekes. Her ideas are not high science (fancy drugs/brain studies etc.) but provide amazingly insightful observations and have an amazing understanding of the psychology of the sufferer. She had anxiety disorder herself. Being highly intelligent, she was able to observe herself and work out extremely effective but commonsensical methods for coping with the illness. I am a scientist myself and have done a lot of reading on the subject - including a lot of the high science. However I know that any sufferer reading this Wikipedia article will have their life transformed by reading Claire Weekes's articles and books. This article is not just for the scientific "experts" in the field. It is for anybody in the world who wants to know about anxiety disorder. If they are sufferers, they will find the references to Claire Weekes work far more useful than anything else in the article. This article is not just for medical/scientific experts in the more technical parts of the field. The irony of your comment is that the exact opposite is true! What I have added to the article, I know as a sufferer of extreme lifelong anxiety disorder, is the most useful information in the article for any sufferer of the illness!
2. (After "we do not need a 1973 BMJ article")
Why should we should be using secondary sources from the last 10 years? People writing in 1973 had as much to say as those writing today. The field has got more technical since those days and experts may not be interested in referencing Claire Weekes any more - so I doubt there are many secondary sources from the last 10 years. However as I have said, her work is still as highly relevant today as at any time. Her work was so good that no one has added anything to replace it since. It is not the sort of scientific field that advances greatly from decade to decade. I see you are a young medical doctor. What is said in the article is extremely useful for sufferers. I expect that, as you are a high achieving young man, you have not spent a lot of time being ill with anxiety disorder. I can tell you that it is one of the most devastating illnesses of all. For example, to give you an idea of how awful the illness is - paraphrasing a consultant psychiatrist "I know people with "locked in syndrome" who still enjoy life enough to want to live, many people with depression/anxiety do not want to live" By undoing my edits you are depriving people around the world of vital information which will transform their lives. I hope you went into medicine to help people. You are doing exactly the opposite by undoing my edits. Please have some humility and consider that perhaps you as a medical doctor, do not have all the answers, and may be wrong in removing the information I have added. I think your medical training, and perhaps lack of experience, is making you blind to what I am trying to do.
3. Could you also explain why I was not allowed to undo 3 edits but Jmh649 is. You can probably tell I am not very experienced on wikipedia.
4. How have I failed MEDRS? And isn't using the letter of the law sometimes going against the spirit of Wikipedia - to make useful information available to a worldwide audience. If my reference is life transforming, why should being old stop it being available to wikipedia readers?
To Jamie (couldn't add my question to your talk page for some reason): To do WQA you need consensus? I'm (obviously) fairly new to Wikipedia. I read the following on the WQA page:
What Wikiquette assistance can do:
I didn't see concensus mentioned here. Where is that mentioned?
Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.156.18 ( talk) 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm posting as a mostly uninvolved third-party on this. A SL93 posted at the
Articles for deletion talk page that a user said on an AfD said he was thinking of a phrase that ended with "and the horse you rode in on." SL93 did not disclose which deletion discussion or which user posted it. Jclemens later posted a response that suggested that SL93's weak nomination (which Jclemens has probably never seen) was the reason for the rudeness and it could have been avoided with a better deletion nomination - a classic case of blaming the victim. Jclemens attitude in the post seems to be that experienced Wikipedians are never guilty. Again, I don't know the identity of the user who originally made the rude post on the deletion discussion, and it is clearly unacceptable.
Ego White Tray (
talk) 12:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
* Lugnuts has (sort of) apologised, I suggest it's now best to move on.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 15:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC) I misread.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I followed WP:BEFORE so I thought I was good. SL93 ( talk) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take this elsewhere. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts has made one of several personal attacks amidst a deletion discussion to both me and User:The Rambling Man. The first was calling Rambling a child and telling them to shut it as the "grown-ups are talking". Rambling then responds sarcastically, thanking Lugnuts for his positive contributions. Then Lugnuts calls him an idiot, telling him to not get hit by an imaginary door. Rambling confronts him about this, saying that he shouldn't resort to name-calling and acting like a WP:DICK.
I notified Lugnuts to not make any personal attacks, which he responds by removing the message and calling me a lacky (--> someone's bitch). He then takes it to the Afd again to make a sarcastic comment, it is not clear whether this was directed at me or Rambling. I then finally tell Lugnuts that his presence is not welcome if all he wants to do is insult people. Again, being sarcastic tone and not assuming good faith, he says it's clearly my first time here. Fed up with this, I reply with a rather long response, telling Lugnuts to assume good faith and leave the Afd if all he wants to do is insult people. Lugnuts clearly crossed the line—bullying and making personal attacks are not tolerated in any environment, especially Wikipedia. Till I Go Home 14:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the too small heart comment wasn't appropriate. Wikipedia is not black and white but many shades of gray. Lugnuts (I'm pretty sure) has agreed not to use terms like "...and the horse you rode on in" in future discussions. Parsing out which snarky comments are worse than others, or demanding apologies and the like, is simply not useful. I encourage everyone just to drop the discussion and move on. Nobody Ent 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I recently edited the wiki page of Ravishankar (Spiritual Leader) on his wiki page under a Section heading "Controversy". However, it has been deleted without any reason by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 ( talk • contribs)
Despite fully referencing these few sentences, and using unbiased point of view, an unfriendly person accused me of giving the topic excessive weight.... nonsense because it was only a few sentences in an extensive article, with very carefully chosen words so as not to present the link as a proven theory, but rather a possibility. My edits were then rolled back by said unfriendly person. Why are these people allowed to operate with impunity? It is very off-putting for new users, and there actions are usually highly suspect and aggressive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tepi ( talk • contribs)