This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
He seems to be a little angry today. Here he is warned by admin User:William M. Connolley [1] for an earlier incivility today. Now he reverts me with this edit summary [2] after he posted copyright violations. Should I just take this to ANI? He has a history of incivility but no blocks for a while. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. In this edit to an RfC, User:DHeyward has advocated blocking Travb indefinitely, saying that his contributions to any article are "essentially nil", and that Travb is a "time-waster". I think a 24 hour block for incivility against DHeyward may be warranted. silly rabbit ( talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I request help in working with an editor, Domer48, who is adding tags to an article when, in my opinion, they are not appropriate. The article is "A Secret History of the IRA," which is an important book written by Ed Moloney. The tags claim the article contains (1) OR or unverified claims and (2) too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.
With respect to the former, there are two sentences that are not sourced. The first is the lead sentence which states that the book was written by Moloney. The second notes that a central theme of the book is the role of Gerry Adams in the Irish Republican Movement. The second sentence is supported by two sentences, sourced, that follow. Aside from the fact that a tag claiming there are too many quotations reflects a point of view, the reason there are so many quotations is that Domer48 and a colleague editor of his, One Night in Hackney, have repeatedly reverted any of my edits that were not sourced and/or direct quotations. Thus, this is a situation of edited if I do and edited if I don't.
His revert history comments says, "tags stay until addressed." I have addressed these issues, which were also raised by One Night in Hackney. One issue, for example, is that The Blanket is not a reliable source. Even though this attitude reflects a POV, I went ahead and added sources from reviews that appeared in The Nation and the Sunday Business Post, both very mainstream outlets. And the reviews were written by persons well-known for their knowledge of Northern Ireland.
Thanks in advance to whomever replies to this. WH.-- WilliamHanrahan ( talk) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the suggestions. I plan to continue to work on the article. WH.-- WilliamHanrahan ( talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. What's wrong with listing the table of contents? It seems to me that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide neutral information for the interested reader. If there is an entry on an album by the Beatles, for example, would the article have the titles of the songs on the album. If no, then it seems fair to not have the chapter titles. If yes, then it seems the table of contents should be there.
With respect to the reviews quoted, should they be neutralized, or should reviews that are less positive be added for balance?
As for The Blanket, we disagree, but that's ok. From what I've seen, The Blanket presents information from a variety of sources. With respect to the particular review, from Liam O Ruairc, his reviews appear in more places than The Blanket.
Again, thank you for the help. WH.
Dear Wiki administrator,
Mr. Factfindingmission is on a mission. He has deleted a section relevant to the biographical content of the article on L. Paul Bremer without consulting with other editors who have put in their contributions. Mr. Factfindingmission proceeded with comments suggesting that other editors make editorial corrections by his instructions and not bother to make these changes himself. After at least two reverts, Mr. Factfindingmission accused one of the editors of being "not nice" and immature, which is construed as a "personal attack". The editor under attack refuses to edit this article further knowing full well Mr. Factfindingmission will start a "revert war", making the article completely useless. Can someone direct Mr. Factfindingmission to the locale where rules, policies, and ettiquette can be found as one edits in Wikipedia?
With Regards, 98.25.253.195 ( talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Fbm3rd keeps changing his own page to remove any information he doesn't like, even though it is public information and is accurately sourced. Is there a way to keep someone from constantly deleting information? Thanks! Evets70 ( talk)
A reasonable discussion of quality of sources turned uncivil when Jefffire began with the personal attacks by insulting my grasp of science.
Generally, I am finding this editor to be unnecessarily insulting, I would like to see him 1) stop and 2) refactor his statements. I don't need or want or demand any sort of apology. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears one user aka Govinda Ramanuja dasa has misunderstanding as far as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and appears to be constantly attacking other editors on a basis that appears to be against WP:5P : ( [4], [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and [12] it destructive to the process, while I and others struggle to get what he actually means in order to assume WP:FAITH. Wikidās ॐ 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see the latest edit to List of Arab Americans with the comment insulting my userid. Apparently by a sockpuppet. Thanks. Hmains ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what other users and administrators think about the state of criticisms of capitalism. Granted it's a contentious issue, but there are many articles that stay-on-topic and balanced without getting bogged down in controversy (e.g. criticisms of socialism). There have been discussions concerning the content of the article and how editors believe that the current structuring (point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint...) makes it unreadable. Ultramarine insists that this is necessary for the article to be POV-free. His edits, however, are POV laden and not necessarily what the page is about. The problem is Ultramarine's proclivity to stalk the page, jumping in and making multiple "defender of capitalism" edits after someone adds anything new to the article [13], [14]. This behavior makes it difficult for new editors to become engaged with the article. Other editors, including User:Giovanni33 and User:BernardL, may be interested in this discussion. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Uwmad ( talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I Hate these Left Page Sponser take up my valuable reading view. It's too small a page to read easily. I hope others join me in protest@@!!@#$$!!
-Angry Anonimous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.185.40 ( talk) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
and now listed over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Beeblbrox ( talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This user did a non-admin close on a this AfD debate that had been open for less than three hours because of their somewhat unique interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. In response to my concerns, expressed on his talk page, that this may not have been an appropriate use of speedy keeping, he basically told me that, although I had nominated the article, I had somehow not expressed an opinion on the subject. A quick look at his talk page, and indeed his own remarks on my talk page, reveal that he makes a habit of this behavior. So basically, I am asking for comment on this rather unorthodox method of closing debates. Beeblbrox ( talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Its been a while since I was more heavily involved in AFd's, but this looks a bit irregular, bordering on bullying. One of the articles accused the nominator of not voting for deletion (despite actually nominating for deletion on the grounds of the article being an advertisement). I would prefer to have a few admins look into this, but it looks .... odd. I'm not sure if this is a wikiquette issue, but it might need some administrator intervention. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Afd reopened I have reversed the closure as the closure doesnt meet the criteria, also noting that a posting to the afd after the closure indicates that editors still have unresolved concerns that can be completed in the afd process. Gnan garra 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Maybe this wasn't clear enough. I was never using WP:SK as a rationale for closing. True, I didn't give a rationale, my fault entirely. The result was a speedy keep, only. Since it was closed before the 5 day period. To Mango: Nothing at AfD is ever final ;p and I can note at least 100 cases to support that (+/- 10). You're right in your assumptions, although I didn't intend to come off as Beeblebrox took it. I'll consider this thread closed... and I'm taking it off my watchlist. Any comments can be directed to my talk. :) SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having issues with Coz 11. He has called people liars, failed to assume good faith, and other issues on Talk:Clayton Bennett and Talk:Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City. I have previously called Coz 11 out for having a conflict of interest, but other editors thought that wasn't necessary. The problems seem to have continued though. It's also hard to discuss the issue with him because deletes almost all comments from his own page and has said he won't discuss this with me anymore on my talk page. Chicken Wing ( talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Noble Story's comments
I'll add some more detailed examples to Chicken Wing's comments:
To begin with, Coz's user page has a banner for Save Our Sonics. It is also very likely, through his information he provides, that he is an important member of that organization, so there's already a question of COI.
In addition, he has edited the articles of Clayton Bennett, Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City, and the Seattle Supersonics (before the second article was split from the Sonics page). All of edits have been designed to cast Bennett in a negative point of view. Or, to correct myself, he has edited with a non-NPOV. For example, here, here, here (an almost slanderous statement to a living person, as nothing had been proved yet), and here (removed it despite reliable citations mentioned in the talk page against Coz's claim), all to the Bennett article. Then you have more edits to the relocation article here, here, and here (removed so-called "speculation" twice, even though it was cited with a reliable source).
However, that is not all of it. He has accused editors of "slant[ing] the article" ( here and again) and added that David Stern has "zero credibility and is a documented liar". Plus, he has made several inflammatory remarks/borderline insults on Chicken Wing's talk page.
Chicken Wing and I have warned him several times, but he has removed them every time. I don't have a problem with what he does with his own pages, but repeated warnings have not reached him at all, and I think something needs to be done. Noble Story ( talk) 09:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been a lurker several times witnessing this person's actions, and frankly feel intimidated by him to the point where I've avoided making edits on certain things. Please see Talk:Kamehameha for his latest. -- Tesscass ( talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Price
I found the comment about plastic surgery on this entry. Please correct, not an appropriate comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.206 ( talk) 12:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think someone experienced should intervene here. -- Eleassar my talk 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean the section 'Death of Aimone'; especially the following two sentences: "And here comes the defender of Karageorgjevich dinasty", "LoL, here comes the defender of the Ustaše (and other fascists, apparently)." -- Eleassar my talk 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This user began New York Pathological Society, an article I had a concern about leading to the application of the Notability template on the article. From there, a user talk conversation between the editor and I began. It's clear that there are serious issues with interpretation of policy that are subject of a RfC on the society article talk page. It's not a user RfC, so I think this is still appropriate for dealing with the issue of civility.
Citations to several diffs showing behavior of concern to me:
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
Here is other behavior I wasn't involved in that is of concern:
Erechtheus ( talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Erechtheus has described my extensively documented and cited criticisms of his behavior and integrity, which have dealt with a number of specific actions he has performed and specific statements he has made, as
character assassination. Consequently I would like to have a more concrete explanation of what issues are being brought into this dispute resolution process.
If Erechtheus feels the request is appropriate for this venue, and if he feels it is an honest request with the intention of demonstrating the nature of this disagreement to third parties, I would ask that he qualitatively identify or otherwise state in his own words each of the assertions I have made which he believes exceed the bounds of a civil discourse. I would not intend for this list to be binding or complete, but rather that Erechtheus should feel free to add specific allegations against me at any time. I don't intend to be describing any limits to my response - I reserve the right to make any statements on this matter which I see fit and I will definitely bring up my own independent points of discussion - but I will advise Erechtheus that were he to furnish such a list two major subjects in my response would be:
-- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
In fact, the instructions explicitly request a description of the situation. I have placed my description below and I really think that as the initiator of this you should add your own. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
The 2 of you (or even just the original author) could have added quite a bit of content to the article in the past day (its first day?) if this argument wasn't going on. You know... enough to satisfy notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's very true. However, the origin of this dispute was that I pointed out to Erechtheus that the information in the article more than established WP:N by indicating the presence of a large number of secondary sources and asked him if, in light of that, he was labeling the article as deletable and repeatedly mentioning WP:N to press me to fulfill some non-notability-related preferences he has for the article. (I have since discovered that the behavior I describe is covered by
WP:GAME.)
In the course of the discussion he made several requests for the article to be reformatted stylistically and made comments upon its writing style. I recommended that other templates might express his aesthetic preferences but he persisted in inserting a notice that the article was a candidate for deletion due to non-notability of its subject. In the mean time he took actions involving another article I had written that I believe may have been part of a further attempt to pressure me into rewriting the New York Pathological Society article to his taste. I did not contribute further content to the article during this dispute because I believe that a Wikipedia user should not use policy or any other means to pressure another user into writing content. This section of Wikiquette alerts currently contains little more than a collection of links selected by a single party in the dispute provided without context or comparison to that party's actions and statements. I have included this synopsis because the instructions at the top of this page ask for a description of the dispute. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
I would also note that the dispute over the the article itself appears to have been resolved by user
CobaltBlueTony introducing a template that does not threaten deletion or assert non-notability of the subject. I appreciate this and I look forward to being able to offer that template as a compromise in the future.
However, I genuinely believe that, whatever his attitude now, Erechtheus has been engaging in WP:GAME; as I mentioned, asserting deletability of the article is not the only way he was trying to pressure me. He also took a number of steps that I think objectively show bad faith and malice, such as attempting to edit my part of the conversation on the article talk page. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
I believe so strongly that what Erechtheus has done here is wrong and against the spirit of the Wikipedia project that I have added a new section to the
WP:Assume good faith guideline,
WP:DGF or "Demonstrate good faith".
So of course, that section of the guideline should not be taken into account in evaluating this dispute. A notice that I am the author of that section should also be carried forward to any further steps in the dispute resolution process. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
About 2 weeks ago, I took on improving the article unconventional warfare under the Military History Project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Some bold rewrites, as well as a need for help making several articles consistent and minimally overlapping -- possibly spawning specialized articles for some background, where I had asked for guidance to deal with the problem of apparently overlapping articles. Do note that I have written extensively in a deliberately globalised article, insurgency.
Tonight, this anonymous user has started complaining that I was horribly altering a "stable" article, which was start-class in MILHIST. I believe I have substantially improved it, taking it from 5K or so characters to 26K with original drawings and continuing to add.
No one objected to this refocusing in the relevant project, and I only started working on unconventional warfare as it had only a cursory coverage of either worldwide or US concepts and needed better coverage. I am fully aware of WP:OWN, and suggest that doesn't apply here, given I asked for input on the article page and at the project page before making any substantive changes.
I've tried to discuss this with the anon user, who keeps insisting that the unconventional warfare article must be global, does not discuss insurgency, seems unwilling to bring the discussion to the MILHIST discussion page, and then reverted the article, explaining where (paraphrasing) my additions about the U.S. Army go in his idea of the article. I can't find any evidence that unconventional warfare was ever a comprehensive global article. Please look at insurgency to see that I understand the difference between something that is intended to be global, and something that is a particular national doctrine for its own approach to that global concept.
While I reverted to put my disagreement on record, I don't want to get into a revert war. I have tried to act in good faith, explained to the anon user why I made changes, and that they had been proposed both on the article talk page and on the MILHIST talk page. The only response was on MILHIST, with a recommendation (coincidentally from a New Zealander) to refocus the unconventional warfare article. That the anon has no edit history, that MILHIST raised no objection to trying to improve the article out of start class, and that the article was small going back at least a year suggests something strange is happening.
At this point, he reverted the article, and then pasted my earlier work into it as a subsection of his preferred article, referring it to my notes on U.S. Army use of the term. Those seem to have been pasted verbatim, which doesn't work well because they were written to be a major article rewrite and not a subsection; I hope it's not a violation of WP:OWN to suggest my contributions are being used out of context and thus not meeting my own editorial standards.
Help! Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Interaction of various sections can help to improve quality of wiki; projects in various languages may help each other. I think, right now, the Russian section of Wikipedia needs such a help.
If you know at least few Russain words, you may look, for example, at
These articles are under deletion procedure. You may check the history of the talk pages - faults of these articles were not discussed there.
Soon, there will be neither political prisoners, nor jailers in Russian-speaking countries. Perhaps, this cannot happen at en.wiki; but it may worth to look, what is happening at other sections, and try to understand the fenomenon.
Just a look and a commnent from a side could be very suitable. dima ( talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
User:216.49.77.67 is disrupting an ongoing AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.
That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [33], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.
At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori ( talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.
That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [34], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.
At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori ( talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
User Hibernian : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hibernian
..is using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk: as a kind of personal attack blog. Example. Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic). --Hibernian
This is uncivil and demeaning and also not true. Could something be done? Thanks. skip sievert ( talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example of this editor being insulting and demeaning from today. It seems this person just is itching to pick a fight all the time. An example of a typical statement by Hibernian today on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk:Technocracy movement.
Quote... Uh hm, right, well I'm really not even going to bother refuting the baloney that you continue to spew, but like I've said before, Your opinions of this or any other Tech Inc. publications don't matter to anybody but yourself, they don't matter to me and they certainly don't matter to Wikipedia. The fact still remains that that electronic version is the only one that has so far been made available by Tech Inc. on the internet, it's as simply as that, no other version is necessary or acceptable. That's the version we can use, End of Story. --Hibernian (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ...end quote
I wish someone would talk to this person about his highly subjective and angry demeanor. He is impossible to reason with. He is a kind of bully with his Pov. angry and accusing. He is also talking about a link above that is blacklisted as spam on wiki. skip sievert ( talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
User:T-rex has deleted my comments from Talk:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines here (although he partially restored that edit), here, here, and here. He did not provide an appropriate edit rationale explaining why he was removing my comments. When I placed a request on his talk page to stop doing this, he responded only by removing that with an edit summary "like this?" Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded one photograph which is a sign associated with a well-known company which is related to both the city of Antigo, Wisconsin and fishing tackle. I then linked that photo within two articles that contain data related to the text on the sign.
Upon returning to Wikipedia, I noticed that I had a message awaiting me. Upon navigating to it I was shown the comments pasted at the bottom of this message.
I feel this person is rude for accusing me of spamming or promoting a business. I had no such thought in my mind.
A simple mention that my content was not acceptable, and hopefully an explanation why it was not, would suffice.
I hope other editors of Wikipedia content are not as rude as the asshole "Geronimo20." Not only is the person rude, they do not accept personal email so that I could discuss the matter with them directly. It would be most beneficial if content editors could be contacted if they initiate an action that directly affects another registered Wikipedia user who has submitted content.
As the situation stands, I uploaded a photograph and attempted to associate it with two existing articles. Asshole "Geronimo20" took offense at it for some unknown reason and I still do not know why he/she accuses me of spamming.
I would appreciate it if someone with a more congenial manner than "Geronimo20" informed me what was wrong with my attempts to add to the Wikipedia database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoo ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | Stop spamming Wikipedia with promotion images as you did with Antigo, Wisconsin and Fishing in Ohio. Wikipedia is not an advertising channel for the business you are trying to promote. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | ” |
“ | Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Antigo, Wisconsin. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. | ” |
Fasach Nua ( talk · contribs) has created a conflict by adding a OR tag to the notable/famous player sections of dozens of national football team articles despite the protests of many editors and the urging that they bring the issue to WT:FOOTY. Because these sections have been in the articles for years uncontested, my position is that they should be removed pending the development of a criteria for inclusion in these sections. The main problem is that Fasach Nua has accused me of trolling his user page, when all I am seeking is an acknowledgement that some form of arbitration has to take place in order to prevent an edit war over dozens of articles. Unfortunately, in the mean time Fasach Nua has removed all of my relevant comments from his user page, making arbitration that much more difficult. He repeatedly removes even my attempts at a peace offer without reading them or acknowledging the process. It is hard for WP to be a collaborative project without the acknowledgement of the proper process when there are disputes. As he will no longer listen to or even acknowledge my comments on the issue, I'm hoping that a third party could intervene. -- Grant . Alpaugh 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This user and an unregistered IP (98.216.128.107) has left a string of messages on my talk in response to my reversion of his spamvertising edits to MIT ( [35], [36], [37]) and later tried to blank them using an unregistered account . Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a moron, refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Looking at Sitnikov's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with spamvertising. As always I try to WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The user, TheOzz, has been confronted about this several times and although he seems genuinely interested in being a constructive participant in editing the article in question, he also seems to be completely blind to his pattern of incivility. I thought it would help to receive an outside comment. I am particularly concerned about things he's offering as background information about real people that may do professional harm to them, and about his ongoing "outing" of an early editor of the article.
Here are some examples of diffs where TheOzz has insisted on supplying the personal name of an early editor and where he has offered background information about a critic of Babywise--in a manner that implies the person is a criminal, and about another critic--in a manner that implies he is not professionally credentialed.
When confronted, he escalates by sharing emails and more details.
Could someone please look this over and give some recommendations? Taketime ( talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably a bit close to some of these issues to form a neutral view, so I though I'd mention it here. In general I've noticed that comments by Qworty in AfD debates can be uncivil, especially in regards to self-published authors. This seems to have come to a bit of a head at this AfD, but there are other examples floating around. While Qworty does good work, I'm concerned that some remarks unfairly characterize other editors, and may warrant a suggestion to tone comments down a tad from someone who can take a more neutral perspective. - Bilby ( talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an odd case. His user page is a slew of random userboxes and his "pet subject" seems to be Espanola, New Mexico. Not such a bad thing, but his most recent edits have caused me concern. He will not interact with other users, insists on blanking his talk page and is edit warring to some extent with his most recent article on James H. Rodriguez Elementary; he keeps removing the cleanup notices. It's totally unsourced and bordering on nonsense with the allegations of the place being haunted. Could someone please have a word with him? Thanks. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't exactly know what to do here, but I am requesting a third party to review what is happening. I shall give a quick overview:
I removed a large section of OR from an article, he put it back. We had a small edit war until I proposed a small solution: that we insert the material into the body text of the article. This was about an hour after I blanked it for the last time. We made up, etc. Awhile later he posts what I see as a basic attack, telling me and other users that I'm a liar. I assume he didn't bother to check the history of the article, and assumed I blanked the section after I spoke with him. I noted this to him, and he didn't seem to care. It just downgrades from there with him, but I continued to stay civil.— Dæ dαlus T@lk / Improve 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thomasalazar ( talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statistics and NPOV language to the article Española Valley High School (and is close to a 3RR violation at the moment). It has been explained to him why these edits are inappropriate; however, he removes warnings and discussions from his talk page (see here, here, and here), and makes uncivil comments on my talk page (see here and here).
Any advice would be helpful. ... discospinster talk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This person is editing articles and putting tags while not even being an administrator. This user has used personal attacks towards Wikipedia New Mexican Members he has only edited their articles and my own and say I don't communicate with other users enough that's fine. Maybe I do not beleive in talking to other users as much as he does. This user has made accusations I have a slew of random userboxes well that is why I don't use or create my own. He has called my common editing of information of Espanola, NM a (PET PROJECT) he has not thought maybe I have an intrest in this neighboring town. I happen to be an alumni of James H. Rodriguez Elementary and I have seen erie things go on inside the school. The reason I delete my cleanup notices is they pile up and start taking over the page and it looks hideous. I'll will leave this at this discospinster has the odacity of saying I have a slew of random user boxes while he has many as well while is it not allowed a Wikipedia User may have as much userboxes as they please. Please talk to him someone. If not I will have to request a removal of discospinster. Thank You. Diamond Joe Quimby ( talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This user is continues to harass me on my talk page with spurious warnings and threats of having my editing ability blocked. I believe this is due to his disagreement over this page's existence (he nominated the article for deletion but it was decided the page was worth keeping, much to his disgust). I have no desire to continue this bickering and have asked the user to cease posting on my talk page, he has responded with more baseless warnings and has recently declared that I am on my 'final' warning.
He is only trying to goad me into abusing him so he has an excuse to get my editing rights removed. In my opinion this is a blatant attempt at interpreting wikipedia's guidelines in such as way as to be disruptive while still being able to claim that he is 'only following the rules'. I am sick of being a target for his frustrations. Ars666 ( talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The post [50] by Mathieugp ( talk) at Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory violates Wikiquette guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The discussion on Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory is about the problematic tone of the article, not a political/historical discussion of subject itself. Although Mathieugp ( talk) makes some legitimate commentary that the name of the article may need to be changed and that the scope of the article needs to be narrowed, the bulk of the post advocates the POV of the article's topic: that there is widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers. He provides a long quote from the 1800's to back up this polemic claim. He sources this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence see link.
Passionate advocacy on behalf of a political POV on Talk pages violates Wikiquette Soapboxing guidelines. So does self-promotion by providing links to a personal web page that also promote these views. The length and inappropriateness of the subject makes the legitimate dialog in the section difficult to follow.
I ask that Mathieugp( talk) correct this breach of wikiquette by removing the portions of his post that advocate his political opinion, the supporting quote, and the link to his personal web page. Talk pages are not the place to make political and historical points and promote personal projects. -- soulscanner ( talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked their talk page, you haven't even left them a message. The best thing I'd advise you to do is first post them a message with your concerns, and discuss it on their talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the University of Manchester Students' Union which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for An-Najah National University in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. Billsmith453 ( talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reporting User:Naruto134 for his discription of his edit on Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon it is edit done on 01:58, 2 May 2008 it says "Fixes, and dude, do something about your horrible spelling. What are you, a preschooler?" the history page is here. Click Here Save The Humans Talk :) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous user who signs his posts "Bert" keeps placing uncivil reamrks on Talk: Ayn Rand. I, and others have removed the comments but he keeps putting them back and threatening other editors with banning if we delete them. You can see the edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=209782356 Ethan a dawe ( talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This user has shown uncivility concerning Spore (video game) and it's talk page (as well as the mediation case on the article). Here's some evidence of his behavior:
That's all the evidence I have so far. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also adding this, this, and probably the worst one, this. I'm the mediator in this Spore mediation. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
MedCab is not formal mediation ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What's worse is that I go out of my way to get the most correct information possible - and when I get irrefutable evidence - directly from Patrick Buechner and by extension Will Wright himself - I get people basically saying that Buechner and Wright don't know what kind of game they're actually making - from people who've never even touched the game. Add to that the sort of piling on and the noxious atmosphere I get at times, and you might understand why I get snappish, especially in light of the fact I've been dealing with this industry in one form or another for 30 years - and professionally in the last 15+. JAF1970 ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that you are trying to use this source, ((gamestooge)/2008/04/29/feature-what-is-spore/ -- removed by User:KieferSkunk 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) due to WP spam filter restrictions), appears to be a self published source, to nullify all other sources, the numerous amount that has been provided. Your proposal gives the idea that you are reluctant to compromise. That is the issue here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also received and witnessed a number of uncivil comments from JAF1970, including many instances of dimsissive laughter, eye-rolling (yes, he actually typed "rolling eyes"), yelling, insults, straw man arguments, drawing absurd metaphorical comparisons like these: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]... I can provide additional diffs if needed. He even accused two editors of sockpuppetry at one point. He seems to think that his experience in his profession makes his views on the proper content of the Spore article hold more weight than those of other editors, even within this discussion! [61] JAF1970 may bring my own comments to the table — I admit at one point I did lose my cool briefly, following a particularly heated argument — however, whereas I took a step back upon being warned that I was out of line, and have since kept considerably more distance than I really wanted to on the issues in order to avoid additional altercations, JAF unapologetically continues to step on everyone's toes. Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I do agree that JAF has been, at times, blunt, he has put a HUGE amount of time and effort into many articles, most of which I have seen in
Spore. I know, from being a long standing contributor to Wiki, that you can become attached to particular articles that you have put a lot of time and effort into, and JAF himself has recognised that he has snapped at people on more than one occasion. I think that our own personalities can become too involved with Wiki at times, and when people say things that are clearly wrong about an article that you've helped a lot with, you can snap.
What I think we need to take away from this discussion is that I think that JAF feels frustrated by the comments of others, as do we all on articles we have worked hard on. As a result, he does often come across as aggressive. JAF, I have told you this before, and I stand by it, that you DO need to think REALLY carefully before replying to people, because while you may have the best intentions, your comments can seem too snappy at times. Other people, cut JAF some slack, we all know that it can be hard to see people with less knowledge than ourselves do some stupid things on articles we've been working hard on! I propose that you take a couple of weeks
Wikibreak as I think that you can
assume bad faith on the Spore article because you have become too attached to it. I will do my hardest to make sure that it's not destroyed! Spore hasn't been released yet, so no doubt there is far more discussion to be had! --
Samtheboy (
t/
c) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
JAF may be blunt and upfront to other users, but he is a good editor - the Spore article has been improved immensely thanks to him. It's clear that he's passionate and well-versed about the game. SeanMooney ( talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is abslutely no need for this anymore. He has been indef blocked for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: ; disruptive editing; edit warring; breaches of copyright policy and per http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=210182215#User:JAF1970 — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Crossin ( talk • contribs)
I'm becoming rather displeased and dismayed with User:Yorkshirian's abuse against myself, and would like some intervention. Yorkshirian seems to hold a bizarre prejudice (even racist sentiments) against me, keep calling me a " Lancastrian", when I'm not from Lancashire and implying somehow that it nullifies me as a worthwhile editor with a voice anyway (I have warned him I take offense several times too). Some facts/incidents:
Given I feel disheartened, constantly abused with no intervention, and generally made to feel unwelcome on the project by Yorkshirian, I'm more than happy to suspend my content building and elevate this to full mediation and take this as high as possible. This simply can't go on unchecked anymore. -- Jza84 | Talk 12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the claims Jza84 makes in his attack/post in this section range from the proposterous to personal attacks made in an attempt to cover up his poor behaviour in regards to me by projecting. For example, in the very first lie/line Jza84 launches a personal attack on me and calls me a "racist" despite the fact that I am probably the same race as him and have never made a racist comment on Wikipedia. This is an unabashed smear by Jza84, a person who on their page cites complaining about races as a "personal hobby". Jza84 seems to have a problem that he is from the historic county of Lancashire, which his hometown of Shaw and Crompton falls within. This is very strange, off the wall behaviour which is certainly in no way mainstream within the United Kingdom. Jza84 expects people (in this case me) to "randomly guess" that he is ashamed of his roots and considers it a form of "abuse" or "attack". Its extremely unreasonable for him to think any normal person should be able to guess such an unorthodox, radical world view.
Despite this, Jza84 insists on editing articles which are highly controversial in relation to the counties of the United Kingdom. For example he attacked the article of cultural group Saddleworth White Rose Society, a group entirely centered around their affilation to the historic county of Yorkshire, by removing a category which shows they are based within said historic county. Jza84 followed me to that article and made an unabashed attempt to antagonise by attempting to sever their cultural links, despite his opinion not following with that of the United Kingdom government or the United Kingdom royal family which rules him (explicitly, Prince Charles, the future king). [76]
I first came across this user in January, when he was trying to propagate a historcially insignificant cotton town, which just happens to be from the county he comes from, as the "second city of the United Kingdom". This despite it never having any official status, or real, historic recognition in such an area. Nevertheless, he decided that, after this encounter he would follow me around this website and attempt to antagonise me, all the while hiding behind smarmily worded comments, which his actions did not match his comments. Early last month, Jza84, decided that he would like to play again. So he followed me to the article on Beverley and he began to troll me edits. However, he didn't stop at one article, he violated WP:POINT and went on to do the same thing on another article I was editing! [77] All the while refusing to take part in any discussion on the talkpage, [78] and leaving smarmy automated messages on my talk. Hypocritically warning me of an edit war, in which he had instigated. [79] Clearly antagonistic behaviour, he seems to have a problem that I'm from Yorkshire and like to contribution to articles relation to the Holy Land. If I am improving any article on the county, Jza will not be far behind trying to wind me up.
For example today. He comes to the Yorkshire article, trolls me with an edit summary of "see talk" despite the fact that he had not even contributed anything at all to the talkpage in question and that on the talk it had been solidly presented that the information which he put back in the article was incorrect. [80] If that was enough spitting on Yorkshire related articles for a day, he then went on to commit the Saddleworth White Rose Society atrocity mentioned earlier in this post. [81] When I messaged him on his talk, requesting an explination for his antagonistic treatment of myself, he basically put across that he couldn't really be bothered to enter the discussion on the talk (and still hasn't) or read the message which I presented before his edit. He then said he was going to report me for saying he is Lancastrian?? I don't understand. This message is very long, I realise, but Jza's playing the victim and attacks on me are so full of it, I just can't accept the way he is behaving when I'm trying to edit articles about my homeland. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone uninvolved with this please offer some insight or comment? MRSC • Talk 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made several attempts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties to draw him into the conversation here. I hope we can work something out so future discussions will be on a civil and constructive basis. MRSC • Talk 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope there will be some indication of resolve on the part of Yorkshirian to significantly improve his conduct. I have asked him to make such a commitment here on his talk page. If this is not forthcoming could I have some indication, from those who have been involved with this user, that they would support a user conduct RFC? MRSC • Talk 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This position and edit summaries like this are unfortunate. We need to move this on quickly so we can get back to constructive editing. MRSC • Talk 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We are trying to make you realise your approch is wrong and that we have established codes of conduct that we need you to abide by. Insulting comments like "you must be wrapped in cotton wool" appear to me to be a continuation of your lack of understanding or willingness to cooperate. The conversation here is a second stage attempt (the first being conversations on your talk page) to resolve this dispute. It appears to have failed. MRSC • Talk 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be
WP:Wikilawyering Jza84, to push your social minority and entirely unorthodox view that the local government administration areas (such as
Greater Manchester) invented in 1974, which are subject to change at any time, are actually recognised cultural areas in the sense of the "traditional counties" are.
[89] You make such hit and run, unsourced reverts to the UK geography project guideline.
[90] While refusing point blank to engage in talkpage discussion, this is in violation of our editing policies and completely unconstructive behaviour.
[91]
The fact that you have the nerve to then come here (playing the victim) and suggest my edit to the guideline which was made with sources from United Kingdom governmental and royal figures [92] is a "damaging edit" because it does not support your social minority POV, is clearly and undoubtedly a violation of WP:NPA. You of course, have a history of personal attacks against myself, with your earlier "racism" attack. I would be interested in having an uninvolved, unbias party review the behavioural actions of this editor, including the tendancy to refuse talkpage discussion, Wikilawyer in an attempt to place the burdon of social minority view before government and monarchy stance, as well as the tendancy to engage in personal attacks. Would I need to start a new section on here?- Yorkshirian ( talk) 11:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent)
May I here implore you, in the words of St Benedict "tempered in all things, so that the strong may have something to strive for and the weak nothing to run from". Several editors have been making contributions which have been nullified by your actions so others (including me) have been notable by their absence.-- Harkey Lodger ( talk) 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This second stage of dispute resolution has become unproductive. Yorkshirian has not taken the issues raised here about his conduct on board and clearly does not accept his behaviour as problematic. Proceed to RFC. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree to proceed to RFC, more in sadness---.-- Harkey Lodger ( talk) 12:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian MRSC • Talk 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Despite several warnings, [93] [94] [95] MRSC has attempted to bully me around Wikipedia and has violated Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, amongs others only this morning, in his all consuming crusade against me, an obsesive crusade in which he is attempting to drag me away from peacefully editing articles.
The way MRSC and friend address me on my talk page, is in a "can do no wrong" condoscending, and "holier than thou" manner, which is in itself offensive and a cause for friction. MRSC's almost trance like obsession with me, unwillingness to let old disagreements go, is exemplified in him following me around from article to article only this morning, when I was add information to them. It is an uncomfortable feeling, to the point of weirding me out that, every edit and move I make on Wikipedia is being watched over my shoulder by MRSC and friend, ready to jump on me at any moment in an act of harassment and Wikilawyering in an attempt to get legislation against me for the simple reason that the two disagree on some elements of content disputes. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can I do? - Yorkshirian ( talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I accept we have little option but wait for the RFC to end. It is unfortunate that there appears to be retaliation since it has been filed in the form of some very serious allegations. Using talk pages to engage with Yorkshirian has failed to produce an amicable outcome, so it is right that we cease informing him of transgressions of the style we have already informed him of our concern about. That said, there should be somewhere we can go to report worsening conduct problems (such as the disruption involving the bogus "vote rigging" claims) and I'm concerned that ANI did not provide us with a route to dealing with these issues. MRSC • Talk 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like some independent eyes from this noticeboard directed to this page, particularly with reference to this and this response. Perhaps this exchange is relevant too. I stand ready to alter my own behaviour as advised. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's a long discussion so I can only go through little by little.
Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In South Slavs section this user has started off with instant blind reverts with swear words [ [106]] to my attempts to enrich the article. BalkanFever often defends this article from being increased and any new reliable sources from being reflected, as the article at the moment does not even make the distinction between Slavs and South Slavs and this to BalkanFever seems to be his aim for some unknown reason. This is very odd behaviour, and I suspect foul play here, can somebody assist? Noonien Soong ( talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite video}}
template to provide a time-stamp for where the laughing occurred * (I disagreed, considering the matter within the same purview that we consider plot summaries as well as being redundant and unclear; the section where the info was used is called “Closing Credits” and the laughter occurred throughout that part of the film. As observable phenomena which was also noted by closed-captioning does not need citation, I removed the template) - Viriditas saw that as an act of [[WP::NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|war]].Last I heard of this Arcayne Children of Men problem was at Wikipedia:RSN#Closing credits on Children of Men, and according to posts there, you had also brought it up elsewhere (NOR is mentioned). Consensus was clearly against you (Arcayne); I find it hard to understand why you are still on about this, unless the goal is to simply overwhelm with verbosity. It seems very straightforward. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, the irony of you posting a wikiquette alert against another editor I’m sure does not go unnoticed by the many editors with whom you’ve had conflicts. Viriditas has shown remarkable patience with you which I have not seen returned by you, and I’ve tried to nicely advise you that continuing your vendetta against him is unproductive for all involved, particularly in light of your own poor behavior, not only with him, but with many other editors. I prefer to spend my limited time at Wikipedia on more positive aspects, like working on articles, but if you’re going to continue disrupting the project by harassing a very productive editor (in the top 100) with 60,000 edits, who has created hundreds of articles, brought many to FA and GA status, along with producing countless DYKs, then perhaps my time will be better spent preventing this persistent disruption by documenting your problematic behavior in order to bring it in check. The preferable route of course is that you simply stop this pursuit and consider the negative effects of your behavior, how you are creating a tedious, wearisome environment for many other volunteers who invest time on this project. Please think about what I am saying. -- MPerel 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
He seems to be a little angry today. Here he is warned by admin User:William M. Connolley [1] for an earlier incivility today. Now he reverts me with this edit summary [2] after he posted copyright violations. Should I just take this to ANI? He has a history of incivility but no blocks for a while. -- DHeyward ( talk) 02:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. In this edit to an RfC, User:DHeyward has advocated blocking Travb indefinitely, saying that his contributions to any article are "essentially nil", and that Travb is a "time-waster". I think a 24 hour block for incivility against DHeyward may be warranted. silly rabbit ( talk) 03:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I request help in working with an editor, Domer48, who is adding tags to an article when, in my opinion, they are not appropriate. The article is "A Secret History of the IRA," which is an important book written by Ed Moloney. The tags claim the article contains (1) OR or unverified claims and (2) too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry.
With respect to the former, there are two sentences that are not sourced. The first is the lead sentence which states that the book was written by Moloney. The second notes that a central theme of the book is the role of Gerry Adams in the Irish Republican Movement. The second sentence is supported by two sentences, sourced, that follow. Aside from the fact that a tag claiming there are too many quotations reflects a point of view, the reason there are so many quotations is that Domer48 and a colleague editor of his, One Night in Hackney, have repeatedly reverted any of my edits that were not sourced and/or direct quotations. Thus, this is a situation of edited if I do and edited if I don't.
His revert history comments says, "tags stay until addressed." I have addressed these issues, which were also raised by One Night in Hackney. One issue, for example, is that The Blanket is not a reliable source. Even though this attitude reflects a POV, I went ahead and added sources from reviews that appeared in The Nation and the Sunday Business Post, both very mainstream outlets. And the reviews were written by persons well-known for their knowledge of Northern Ireland.
Thanks in advance to whomever replies to this. WH.-- WilliamHanrahan ( talk) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the suggestions. I plan to continue to work on the article. WH.-- WilliamHanrahan ( talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. What's wrong with listing the table of contents? It seems to me that the goal of Wikipedia is to provide neutral information for the interested reader. If there is an entry on an album by the Beatles, for example, would the article have the titles of the songs on the album. If no, then it seems fair to not have the chapter titles. If yes, then it seems the table of contents should be there.
With respect to the reviews quoted, should they be neutralized, or should reviews that are less positive be added for balance?
As for The Blanket, we disagree, but that's ok. From what I've seen, The Blanket presents information from a variety of sources. With respect to the particular review, from Liam O Ruairc, his reviews appear in more places than The Blanket.
Again, thank you for the help. WH.
Dear Wiki administrator,
Mr. Factfindingmission is on a mission. He has deleted a section relevant to the biographical content of the article on L. Paul Bremer without consulting with other editors who have put in their contributions. Mr. Factfindingmission proceeded with comments suggesting that other editors make editorial corrections by his instructions and not bother to make these changes himself. After at least two reverts, Mr. Factfindingmission accused one of the editors of being "not nice" and immature, which is construed as a "personal attack". The editor under attack refuses to edit this article further knowing full well Mr. Factfindingmission will start a "revert war", making the article completely useless. Can someone direct Mr. Factfindingmission to the locale where rules, policies, and ettiquette can be found as one edits in Wikipedia?
With Regards, 98.25.253.195 ( talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Fbm3rd keeps changing his own page to remove any information he doesn't like, even though it is public information and is accurately sourced. Is there a way to keep someone from constantly deleting information? Thanks! Evets70 ( talk)
A reasonable discussion of quality of sources turned uncivil when Jefffire began with the personal attacks by insulting my grasp of science.
Generally, I am finding this editor to be unnecessarily insulting, I would like to see him 1) stop and 2) refactor his statements. I don't need or want or demand any sort of apology. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears one user aka Govinda Ramanuja dasa has misunderstanding as far as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, and appears to be constantly attacking other editors on a basis that appears to be against WP:5P : ( [4], [5], [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Everyone, if he thinks they are ISKCON... and [12] it destructive to the process, while I and others struggle to get what he actually means in order to assume WP:FAITH. Wikidās ॐ 10:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see the latest edit to List of Arab Americans with the comment insulting my userid. Apparently by a sockpuppet. Thanks. Hmains ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what other users and administrators think about the state of criticisms of capitalism. Granted it's a contentious issue, but there are many articles that stay-on-topic and balanced without getting bogged down in controversy (e.g. criticisms of socialism). There have been discussions concerning the content of the article and how editors believe that the current structuring (point-counterpoint-point-counterpoint...) makes it unreadable. Ultramarine insists that this is necessary for the article to be POV-free. His edits, however, are POV laden and not necessarily what the page is about. The problem is Ultramarine's proclivity to stalk the page, jumping in and making multiple "defender of capitalism" edits after someone adds anything new to the article [13], [14]. This behavior makes it difficult for new editors to become engaged with the article. Other editors, including User:Giovanni33 and User:BernardL, may be interested in this discussion. Any comments on this would be appreciated. Uwmad ( talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I Hate these Left Page Sponser take up my valuable reading view. It's too small a page to read easily. I hope others join me in protest@@!!@#$$!!
-Angry Anonimous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.185.40 ( talk) 06:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
and now listed over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Beeblbrox ( talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This user did a non-admin close on a this AfD debate that had been open for less than three hours because of their somewhat unique interpretation of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. In response to my concerns, expressed on his talk page, that this may not have been an appropriate use of speedy keeping, he basically told me that, although I had nominated the article, I had somehow not expressed an opinion on the subject. A quick look at his talk page, and indeed his own remarks on my talk page, reveal that he makes a habit of this behavior. So basically, I am asking for comment on this rather unorthodox method of closing debates. Beeblbrox ( talk) 04:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Its been a while since I was more heavily involved in AFd's, but this looks a bit irregular, bordering on bullying. One of the articles accused the nominator of not voting for deletion (despite actually nominating for deletion on the grounds of the article being an advertisement). I would prefer to have a few admins look into this, but it looks .... odd. I'm not sure if this is a wikiquette issue, but it might need some administrator intervention. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 04:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Afd reopened I have reversed the closure as the closure doesnt meet the criteria, also noting that a posting to the afd after the closure indicates that editors still have unresolved concerns that can be completed in the afd process. Gnan garra 13:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Maybe this wasn't clear enough. I was never using WP:SK as a rationale for closing. True, I didn't give a rationale, my fault entirely. The result was a speedy keep, only. Since it was closed before the 5 day period. To Mango: Nothing at AfD is ever final ;p and I can note at least 100 cases to support that (+/- 10). You're right in your assumptions, although I didn't intend to come off as Beeblebrox took it. I'll consider this thread closed... and I'm taking it off my watchlist. Any comments can be directed to my talk. :) SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm having issues with Coz 11. He has called people liars, failed to assume good faith, and other issues on Talk:Clayton Bennett and Talk:Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City. I have previously called Coz 11 out for having a conflict of interest, but other editors thought that wasn't necessary. The problems seem to have continued though. It's also hard to discuss the issue with him because deletes almost all comments from his own page and has said he won't discuss this with me anymore on my talk page. Chicken Wing ( talk) 08:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Noble Story's comments
I'll add some more detailed examples to Chicken Wing's comments:
To begin with, Coz's user page has a banner for Save Our Sonics. It is also very likely, through his information he provides, that he is an important member of that organization, so there's already a question of COI.
In addition, he has edited the articles of Clayton Bennett, Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City, and the Seattle Supersonics (before the second article was split from the Sonics page). All of edits have been designed to cast Bennett in a negative point of view. Or, to correct myself, he has edited with a non-NPOV. For example, here, here, here (an almost slanderous statement to a living person, as nothing had been proved yet), and here (removed it despite reliable citations mentioned in the talk page against Coz's claim), all to the Bennett article. Then you have more edits to the relocation article here, here, and here (removed so-called "speculation" twice, even though it was cited with a reliable source).
However, that is not all of it. He has accused editors of "slant[ing] the article" ( here and again) and added that David Stern has "zero credibility and is a documented liar". Plus, he has made several inflammatory remarks/borderline insults on Chicken Wing's talk page.
Chicken Wing and I have warned him several times, but he has removed them every time. I don't have a problem with what he does with his own pages, but repeated warnings have not reached him at all, and I think something needs to be done. Noble Story ( talk) 09:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been a lurker several times witnessing this person's actions, and frankly feel intimidated by him to the point where I've avoided making edits on certain things. Please see Talk:Kamehameha for his latest. -- Tesscass ( talk) 00:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Price
I found the comment about plastic surgery on this entry. Please correct, not an appropriate comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.206 ( talk) 12:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I think someone experienced should intervene here. -- Eleassar my talk 10:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean the section 'Death of Aimone'; especially the following two sentences: "And here comes the defender of Karageorgjevich dinasty", "LoL, here comes the defender of the Ustaše (and other fascists, apparently)." -- Eleassar my talk 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This user began New York Pathological Society, an article I had a concern about leading to the application of the Notability template on the article. From there, a user talk conversation between the editor and I began. It's clear that there are serious issues with interpretation of policy that are subject of a RfC on the society article talk page. It's not a user RfC, so I think this is still appropriate for dealing with the issue of civility.
Citations to several diffs showing behavior of concern to me:
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
Here is other behavior I wasn't involved in that is of concern:
Erechtheus ( talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Erechtheus has described my extensively documented and cited criticisms of his behavior and integrity, which have dealt with a number of specific actions he has performed and specific statements he has made, as
character assassination. Consequently I would like to have a more concrete explanation of what issues are being brought into this dispute resolution process.
If Erechtheus feels the request is appropriate for this venue, and if he feels it is an honest request with the intention of demonstrating the nature of this disagreement to third parties, I would ask that he qualitatively identify or otherwise state in his own words each of the assertions I have made which he believes exceed the bounds of a civil discourse. I would not intend for this list to be binding or complete, but rather that Erechtheus should feel free to add specific allegations against me at any time. I don't intend to be describing any limits to my response - I reserve the right to make any statements on this matter which I see fit and I will definitely bring up my own independent points of discussion - but I will advise Erechtheus that were he to furnish such a list two major subjects in my response would be:
-- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
In fact, the instructions explicitly request a description of the situation. I have placed my description below and I really think that as the initiator of this you should add your own. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
The 2 of you (or even just the original author) could have added quite a bit of content to the article in the past day (its first day?) if this argument wasn't going on. You know... enough to satisfy notability guidelines. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 00:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That's very true. However, the origin of this dispute was that I pointed out to Erechtheus that the information in the article more than established WP:N by indicating the presence of a large number of secondary sources and asked him if, in light of that, he was labeling the article as deletable and repeatedly mentioning WP:N to press me to fulfill some non-notability-related preferences he has for the article. (I have since discovered that the behavior I describe is covered by
WP:GAME.)
In the course of the discussion he made several requests for the article to be reformatted stylistically and made comments upon its writing style. I recommended that other templates might express his aesthetic preferences but he persisted in inserting a notice that the article was a candidate for deletion due to non-notability of its subject. In the mean time he took actions involving another article I had written that I believe may have been part of a further attempt to pressure me into rewriting the New York Pathological Society article to his taste. I did not contribute further content to the article during this dispute because I believe that a Wikipedia user should not use policy or any other means to pressure another user into writing content. This section of Wikiquette alerts currently contains little more than a collection of links selected by a single party in the dispute provided without context or comparison to that party's actions and statements. I have included this synopsis because the instructions at the top of this page ask for a description of the dispute. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
I would also note that the dispute over the the article itself appears to have been resolved by user
CobaltBlueTony introducing a template that does not threaten deletion or assert non-notability of the subject. I appreciate this and I look forward to being able to offer that template as a compromise in the future.
However, I genuinely believe that, whatever his attitude now, Erechtheus has been engaging in WP:GAME; as I mentioned, asserting deletability of the article is not the only way he was trying to pressure me. He also took a number of steps that I think objectively show bad faith and malice, such as attempting to edit my part of the conversation on the article talk page. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC) |
I believe so strongly that what Erechtheus has done here is wrong and against the spirit of the Wikipedia project that I have added a new section to the
WP:Assume good faith guideline,
WP:DGF or "Demonstrate good faith".
So of course, that section of the guideline should not be taken into account in evaluating this dispute. A notice that I am the author of that section should also be carried forward to any further steps in the dispute resolution process. -- ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) |
About 2 weeks ago, I took on improving the article unconventional warfare under the Military History Project. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Some bold rewrites, as well as a need for help making several articles consistent and minimally overlapping -- possibly spawning specialized articles for some background, where I had asked for guidance to deal with the problem of apparently overlapping articles. Do note that I have written extensively in a deliberately globalised article, insurgency.
Tonight, this anonymous user has started complaining that I was horribly altering a "stable" article, which was start-class in MILHIST. I believe I have substantially improved it, taking it from 5K or so characters to 26K with original drawings and continuing to add.
No one objected to this refocusing in the relevant project, and I only started working on unconventional warfare as it had only a cursory coverage of either worldwide or US concepts and needed better coverage. I am fully aware of WP:OWN, and suggest that doesn't apply here, given I asked for input on the article page and at the project page before making any substantive changes.
I've tried to discuss this with the anon user, who keeps insisting that the unconventional warfare article must be global, does not discuss insurgency, seems unwilling to bring the discussion to the MILHIST discussion page, and then reverted the article, explaining where (paraphrasing) my additions about the U.S. Army go in his idea of the article. I can't find any evidence that unconventional warfare was ever a comprehensive global article. Please look at insurgency to see that I understand the difference between something that is intended to be global, and something that is a particular national doctrine for its own approach to that global concept.
While I reverted to put my disagreement on record, I don't want to get into a revert war. I have tried to act in good faith, explained to the anon user why I made changes, and that they had been proposed both on the article talk page and on the MILHIST talk page. The only response was on MILHIST, with a recommendation (coincidentally from a New Zealander) to refocus the unconventional warfare article. That the anon has no edit history, that MILHIST raised no objection to trying to improve the article out of start class, and that the article was small going back at least a year suggests something strange is happening.
At this point, he reverted the article, and then pasted my earlier work into it as a subsection of his preferred article, referring it to my notes on U.S. Army use of the term. Those seem to have been pasted verbatim, which doesn't work well because they were written to be a major article rewrite and not a subsection; I hope it's not a violation of WP:OWN to suggest my contributions are being used out of context and thus not meeting my own editorial standards.
Help! Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Interaction of various sections can help to improve quality of wiki; projects in various languages may help each other. I think, right now, the Russian section of Wikipedia needs such a help.
If you know at least few Russain words, you may look, for example, at
These articles are under deletion procedure. You may check the history of the talk pages - faults of these articles were not discussed there.
Soon, there will be neither political prisoners, nor jailers in Russian-speaking countries. Perhaps, this cannot happen at en.wiki; but it may worth to look, what is happening at other sections, and try to understand the fenomenon.
Just a look and a commnent from a side could be very suitable. dima ( talk) 05:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
User:216.49.77.67 is disrupting an ongoing AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Ann McBride) with personal attacks. This editor has also vandalized AFDs on a similar subject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big O and Dukes. I'm all for everyone commenting in AFDs but they need to stick the subject of the AFD and keep the personal attacks out of it and would appreciate some admin assistance.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.
That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [33], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.
At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori ( talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has deleted the same single sentence in the Healdsburg, California article three times. The first time, he did it with the comment, "not sure who added this, but this is completely untRue". I reverted it, figuring that it was random vandalism. The second time, he did it with the comment, "dearest DoriSmith this material is false if you believe otherwise you best be prepa". After this, I (1) added a detailed breakdown of the single sentence(!) on the article's talk page, explaining the facts behind every clause, (2) put a brief comment on his talk page asking for discussion to move to the article talk page, and (3) reverted his second deletion. He then deleted the sentence for the third time, with the comment, "this claim is not sourced and you are abusing your privilege of Popups - stop." He left no messages for me on my talk page, his talk page, or the article's talk page.
That line in the article, btw, was originally added in 2005 [34], and has been in there ever since with only minor modifications.
At no point has he ever explained why he thinks it's untrue, false, or not sourced, or even to what part he objects. I don't want to get into a silly reversion war, but I'm having trouble starting a discussion here. Dori ( talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
User Hibernian : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hibernian
..is using the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk: as a kind of personal attack blog. Example. Skip quote: "I am not involved in TechInc or NET.". Wow! somebody actually got Skip to admit that he was kicked out of Technocracy Inc.! It took him about 2 years to admit it and come to the realisation, but better late than never I guess! What you didn't mention of-course, is that you were very embittered by that dismissal and have since attacked the organization in any way you can (including on Wiki) and even tried to setup a rival group. You've recently also attempted to insert the name of your "group" into Wiki articles. Hmmm no, no conflicts of interests there, I think Skips just a honest contributor with no hidden agenda at all (And if you can't guess, yes I’m being Sarcastic). --Hibernian
This is uncivil and demeaning and also not true. Could something be done? Thanks. skip sievert ( talk) 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example of this editor being insulting and demeaning from today. It seems this person just is itching to pick a fight all the time. An example of a typical statement by Hibernian today on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technocracy_movement Talk:Technocracy movement.
Quote... Uh hm, right, well I'm really not even going to bother refuting the baloney that you continue to spew, but like I've said before, Your opinions of this or any other Tech Inc. publications don't matter to anybody but yourself, they don't matter to me and they certainly don't matter to Wikipedia. The fact still remains that that electronic version is the only one that has so far been made available by Tech Inc. on the internet, it's as simply as that, no other version is necessary or acceptable. That's the version we can use, End of Story. --Hibernian (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC) ...end quote
I wish someone would talk to this person about his highly subjective and angry demeanor. He is impossible to reason with. He is a kind of bully with his Pov. angry and accusing. He is also talking about a link above that is blacklisted as spam on wiki. skip sievert ( talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
User:T-rex has deleted my comments from Talk:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines here (although he partially restored that edit), here, here, and here. He did not provide an appropriate edit rationale explaining why he was removing my comments. When I placed a request on his talk page to stop doing this, he responded only by removing that with an edit summary "like this?" Maher-shalal-hashbaz ( talk) 21:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I uploaded one photograph which is a sign associated with a well-known company which is related to both the city of Antigo, Wisconsin and fishing tackle. I then linked that photo within two articles that contain data related to the text on the sign.
Upon returning to Wikipedia, I noticed that I had a message awaiting me. Upon navigating to it I was shown the comments pasted at the bottom of this message.
I feel this person is rude for accusing me of spamming or promoting a business. I had no such thought in my mind.
A simple mention that my content was not acceptable, and hopefully an explanation why it was not, would suffice.
I hope other editors of Wikipedia content are not as rude as the asshole "Geronimo20." Not only is the person rude, they do not accept personal email so that I could discuss the matter with them directly. It would be most beneficial if content editors could be contacted if they initiate an action that directly affects another registered Wikipedia user who has submitted content.
As the situation stands, I uploaded a photograph and attempted to associate it with two existing articles. Asshole "Geronimo20" took offense at it for some unknown reason and I still do not know why he/she accuses me of spamming.
I would appreciate it if someone with a more congenial manner than "Geronimo20" informed me what was wrong with my attempts to add to the Wikipedia database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoodoo ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
“ | Stop spamming Wikipedia with promotion images as you did with Antigo, Wisconsin and Fishing in Ohio. Wikipedia is not an advertising channel for the business you are trying to promote. -- Geronimo20 ( talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC) | ” |
“ | Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Antigo, Wisconsin. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. | ” |
Fasach Nua ( talk · contribs) has created a conflict by adding a OR tag to the notable/famous player sections of dozens of national football team articles despite the protests of many editors and the urging that they bring the issue to WT:FOOTY. Because these sections have been in the articles for years uncontested, my position is that they should be removed pending the development of a criteria for inclusion in these sections. The main problem is that Fasach Nua has accused me of trolling his user page, when all I am seeking is an acknowledgement that some form of arbitration has to take place in order to prevent an edit war over dozens of articles. Unfortunately, in the mean time Fasach Nua has removed all of my relevant comments from his user page, making arbitration that much more difficult. He repeatedly removes even my attempts at a peace offer without reading them or acknowledging the process. It is hard for WP to be a collaborative project without the acknowledgement of the proper process when there are disputes. As he will no longer listen to or even acknowledge my comments on the issue, I'm hoping that a third party could intervene. -- Grant . Alpaugh 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This user and an unregistered IP (98.216.128.107) has left a string of messages on my talk in response to my reversion of his spamvertising edits to MIT ( [35], [36], [37]) and later tried to blank them using an unregistered account . Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a moron, refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] Looking at Sitnikov's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with spamvertising. As always I try to WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The user, TheOzz, has been confronted about this several times and although he seems genuinely interested in being a constructive participant in editing the article in question, he also seems to be completely blind to his pattern of incivility. I thought it would help to receive an outside comment. I am particularly concerned about things he's offering as background information about real people that may do professional harm to them, and about his ongoing "outing" of an early editor of the article.
Here are some examples of diffs where TheOzz has insisted on supplying the personal name of an early editor and where he has offered background information about a critic of Babywise--in a manner that implies the person is a criminal, and about another critic--in a manner that implies he is not professionally credentialed.
When confronted, he escalates by sharing emails and more details.
Could someone please look this over and give some recommendations? Taketime ( talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm probably a bit close to some of these issues to form a neutral view, so I though I'd mention it here. In general I've noticed that comments by Qworty in AfD debates can be uncivil, especially in regards to self-published authors. This seems to have come to a bit of a head at this AfD, but there are other examples floating around. While Qworty does good work, I'm concerned that some remarks unfairly characterize other editors, and may warrant a suggestion to tone comments down a tad from someone who can take a more neutral perspective. - Bilby ( talk) 13:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an odd case. His user page is a slew of random userboxes and his "pet subject" seems to be Espanola, New Mexico. Not such a bad thing, but his most recent edits have caused me concern. He will not interact with other users, insists on blanking his talk page and is edit warring to some extent with his most recent article on James H. Rodriguez Elementary; he keeps removing the cleanup notices. It's totally unsourced and bordering on nonsense with the allegations of the place being haunted. Could someone please have a word with him? Thanks. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 18:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't exactly know what to do here, but I am requesting a third party to review what is happening. I shall give a quick overview:
I removed a large section of OR from an article, he put it back. We had a small edit war until I proposed a small solution: that we insert the material into the body text of the article. This was about an hour after I blanked it for the last time. We made up, etc. Awhile later he posts what I see as a basic attack, telling me and other users that I'm a liar. I assume he didn't bother to check the history of the article, and assumed I blanked the section after I spoke with him. I noted this to him, and he didn't seem to care. It just downgrades from there with him, but I continued to stay civil.— Dæ dαlus T@lk / Improve 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thomasalazar ( talk · contribs) has been adding unsourced statistics and NPOV language to the article Española Valley High School (and is close to a 3RR violation at the moment). It has been explained to him why these edits are inappropriate; however, he removes warnings and discussions from his talk page (see here, here, and here), and makes uncivil comments on my talk page (see here and here).
Any advice would be helpful. ... discospinster talk 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This person is editing articles and putting tags while not even being an administrator. This user has used personal attacks towards Wikipedia New Mexican Members he has only edited their articles and my own and say I don't communicate with other users enough that's fine. Maybe I do not beleive in talking to other users as much as he does. This user has made accusations I have a slew of random userboxes well that is why I don't use or create my own. He has called my common editing of information of Espanola, NM a (PET PROJECT) he has not thought maybe I have an intrest in this neighboring town. I happen to be an alumni of James H. Rodriguez Elementary and I have seen erie things go on inside the school. The reason I delete my cleanup notices is they pile up and start taking over the page and it looks hideous. I'll will leave this at this discospinster has the odacity of saying I have a slew of random user boxes while he has many as well while is it not allowed a Wikipedia User may have as much userboxes as they please. Please talk to him someone. If not I will have to request a removal of discospinster. Thank You. Diamond Joe Quimby ( talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This user is continues to harass me on my talk page with spurious warnings and threats of having my editing ability blocked. I believe this is due to his disagreement over this page's existence (he nominated the article for deletion but it was decided the page was worth keeping, much to his disgust). I have no desire to continue this bickering and have asked the user to cease posting on my talk page, he has responded with more baseless warnings and has recently declared that I am on my 'final' warning.
He is only trying to goad me into abusing him so he has an excuse to get my editing rights removed. In my opinion this is a blatant attempt at interpreting wikipedia's guidelines in such as way as to be disruptive while still being able to claim that he is 'only following the rules'. I am sick of being a target for his frustrations. Ars666 ( talk) 04:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The post [50] by Mathieugp ( talk) at Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory violates Wikiquette guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. The discussion on Talk:Anti-Quebec_sentiment#Conspiracy_theory is about the problematic tone of the article, not a political/historical discussion of subject itself. Although Mathieugp ( talk) makes some legitimate commentary that the name of the article may need to be changed and that the scope of the article needs to be narrowed, the bulk of the post advocates the POV of the article's topic: that there is widespread prejudice against Quebecers and French Canadians in Canada among English-speakers. He provides a long quote from the 1800's to back up this polemic claim. He sources this claim with a link to his personal web page that promotes Quebec independence see link.
Passionate advocacy on behalf of a political POV on Talk pages violates Wikiquette Soapboxing guidelines. So does self-promotion by providing links to a personal web page that also promote these views. The length and inappropriateness of the subject makes the legitimate dialog in the section difficult to follow.
I ask that Mathieugp( talk) correct this breach of wikiquette by removing the portions of his post that advocate his political opinion, the supporting quote, and the link to his personal web page. Talk pages are not the place to make political and historical points and promote personal projects. -- soulscanner ( talk) 07:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I checked their talk page, you haven't even left them a message. The best thing I'd advise you to do is first post them a message with your concerns, and discuss it on their talk page. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 08:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, hopefully this is the right place for this, user 87.194.247.89, keeps making edits to articles including the University of Manchester Students' Union which I'm working on, to push his pov on the way we twinned with the university of An-najah. I now notice he's edited the page for An-Najah National University in a similar way. I've left a message on his talk page and stuff on the article's discussion board but I'm not really sure what to do next. Billsmith453 ( talk) 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I am reporting User:Naruto134 for his discription of his edit on Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon it is edit done on 01:58, 2 May 2008 it says "Fixes, and dude, do something about your horrible spelling. What are you, a preschooler?" the history page is here. Click Here Save The Humans Talk :) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
This anonymous user who signs his posts "Bert" keeps placing uncivil reamrks on Talk: Ayn Rand. I, and others have removed the comments but he keeps putting them back and threatening other editors with banning if we delete them. You can see the edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ayn_Rand&diff=prev&oldid=209782356 Ethan a dawe ( talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This user has shown uncivility concerning Spore (video game) and it's talk page (as well as the mediation case on the article). Here's some evidence of his behavior:
That's all the evidence I have so far. RobJ1981 ( talk) 23:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Also adding this, this, and probably the worst one, this. I'm the mediator in this Spore mediation. Thanks Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
MedCab is not formal mediation ;). Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 00:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What's worse is that I go out of my way to get the most correct information possible - and when I get irrefutable evidence - directly from Patrick Buechner and by extension Will Wright himself - I get people basically saying that Buechner and Wright don't know what kind of game they're actually making - from people who've never even touched the game. Add to that the sort of piling on and the noxious atmosphere I get at times, and you might understand why I get snappish, especially in light of the fact I've been dealing with this industry in one form or another for 30 years - and professionally in the last 15+. JAF1970 ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that you are trying to use this source, ((gamestooge)/2008/04/29/feature-what-is-spore/ -- removed by User:KieferSkunk 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC) due to WP spam filter restrictions), appears to be a self published source, to nullify all other sources, the numerous amount that has been provided. Your proposal gives the idea that you are reluctant to compromise. That is the issue here. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 05:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have also received and witnessed a number of uncivil comments from JAF1970, including many instances of dimsissive laughter, eye-rolling (yes, he actually typed "rolling eyes"), yelling, insults, straw man arguments, drawing absurd metaphorical comparisons like these: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]... I can provide additional diffs if needed. He even accused two editors of sockpuppetry at one point. He seems to think that his experience in his profession makes his views on the proper content of the Spore article hold more weight than those of other editors, even within this discussion! [61] JAF1970 may bring my own comments to the table — I admit at one point I did lose my cool briefly, following a particularly heated argument — however, whereas I took a step back upon being warned that I was out of line, and have since kept considerably more distance than I really wanted to on the issues in order to avoid additional altercations, JAF unapologetically continues to step on everyone's toes. Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 14:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I do agree that JAF has been, at times, blunt, he has put a HUGE amount of time and effort into many articles, most of which I have seen in
Spore. I know, from being a long standing contributor to Wiki, that you can become attached to particular articles that you have put a lot of time and effort into, and JAF himself has recognised that he has snapped at people on more than one occasion. I think that our own personalities can become too involved with Wiki at times, and when people say things that are clearly wrong about an article that you've helped a lot with, you can snap.
What I think we need to take away from this discussion is that I think that JAF feels frustrated by the comments of others, as do we all on articles we have worked hard on. As a result, he does often come across as aggressive. JAF, I have told you this before, and I stand by it, that you DO need to think REALLY carefully before replying to people, because while you may have the best intentions, your comments can seem too snappy at times. Other people, cut JAF some slack, we all know that it can be hard to see people with less knowledge than ourselves do some stupid things on articles we've been working hard on! I propose that you take a couple of weeks
Wikibreak as I think that you can
assume bad faith on the Spore article because you have become too attached to it. I will do my hardest to make sure that it's not destroyed! Spore hasn't been released yet, so no doubt there is far more discussion to be had! --
Samtheboy (
t/
c) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
JAF may be blunt and upfront to other users, but he is a good editor - the Spore article has been improved immensely thanks to him. It's clear that he's passionate and well-versed about the game. SeanMooney ( talk) 19:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There is abslutely no need for this anymore. He has been indef blocked for Personal attacks or harassment of other users: ; disruptive editing; edit warring; breaches of copyright policy and per http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=210182215#User:JAF1970 — —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Crossin ( talk • contribs)
I'm becoming rather displeased and dismayed with User:Yorkshirian's abuse against myself, and would like some intervention. Yorkshirian seems to hold a bizarre prejudice (even racist sentiments) against me, keep calling me a " Lancastrian", when I'm not from Lancashire and implying somehow that it nullifies me as a worthwhile editor with a voice anyway (I have warned him I take offense several times too). Some facts/incidents:
Given I feel disheartened, constantly abused with no intervention, and generally made to feel unwelcome on the project by Yorkshirian, I'm more than happy to suspend my content building and elevate this to full mediation and take this as high as possible. This simply can't go on unchecked anymore. -- Jza84 | Talk 12:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Many of the claims Jza84 makes in his attack/post in this section range from the proposterous to personal attacks made in an attempt to cover up his poor behaviour in regards to me by projecting. For example, in the very first lie/line Jza84 launches a personal attack on me and calls me a "racist" despite the fact that I am probably the same race as him and have never made a racist comment on Wikipedia. This is an unabashed smear by Jza84, a person who on their page cites complaining about races as a "personal hobby". Jza84 seems to have a problem that he is from the historic county of Lancashire, which his hometown of Shaw and Crompton falls within. This is very strange, off the wall behaviour which is certainly in no way mainstream within the United Kingdom. Jza84 expects people (in this case me) to "randomly guess" that he is ashamed of his roots and considers it a form of "abuse" or "attack". Its extremely unreasonable for him to think any normal person should be able to guess such an unorthodox, radical world view.
Despite this, Jza84 insists on editing articles which are highly controversial in relation to the counties of the United Kingdom. For example he attacked the article of cultural group Saddleworth White Rose Society, a group entirely centered around their affilation to the historic county of Yorkshire, by removing a category which shows they are based within said historic county. Jza84 followed me to that article and made an unabashed attempt to antagonise by attempting to sever their cultural links, despite his opinion not following with that of the United Kingdom government or the United Kingdom royal family which rules him (explicitly, Prince Charles, the future king). [76]
I first came across this user in January, when he was trying to propagate a historcially insignificant cotton town, which just happens to be from the county he comes from, as the "second city of the United Kingdom". This despite it never having any official status, or real, historic recognition in such an area. Nevertheless, he decided that, after this encounter he would follow me around this website and attempt to antagonise me, all the while hiding behind smarmily worded comments, which his actions did not match his comments. Early last month, Jza84, decided that he would like to play again. So he followed me to the article on Beverley and he began to troll me edits. However, he didn't stop at one article, he violated WP:POINT and went on to do the same thing on another article I was editing! [77] All the while refusing to take part in any discussion on the talkpage, [78] and leaving smarmy automated messages on my talk. Hypocritically warning me of an edit war, in which he had instigated. [79] Clearly antagonistic behaviour, he seems to have a problem that I'm from Yorkshire and like to contribution to articles relation to the Holy Land. If I am improving any article on the county, Jza will not be far behind trying to wind me up.
For example today. He comes to the Yorkshire article, trolls me with an edit summary of "see talk" despite the fact that he had not even contributed anything at all to the talkpage in question and that on the talk it had been solidly presented that the information which he put back in the article was incorrect. [80] If that was enough spitting on Yorkshire related articles for a day, he then went on to commit the Saddleworth White Rose Society atrocity mentioned earlier in this post. [81] When I messaged him on his talk, requesting an explination for his antagonistic treatment of myself, he basically put across that he couldn't really be bothered to enter the discussion on the talk (and still hasn't) or read the message which I presented before his edit. He then said he was going to report me for saying he is Lancastrian?? I don't understand. This message is very long, I realise, but Jza's playing the victim and attacks on me are so full of it, I just can't accept the way he is behaving when I'm trying to edit articles about my homeland. - Yorkshirian ( talk) 13:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone uninvolved with this please offer some insight or comment? MRSC • Talk 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made several attempts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties to draw him into the conversation here. I hope we can work something out so future discussions will be on a civil and constructive basis. MRSC • Talk 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope there will be some indication of resolve on the part of Yorkshirian to significantly improve his conduct. I have asked him to make such a commitment here on his talk page. If this is not forthcoming could I have some indication, from those who have been involved with this user, that they would support a user conduct RFC? MRSC • Talk 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This position and edit summaries like this are unfortunate. We need to move this on quickly so we can get back to constructive editing. MRSC • Talk 04:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We are trying to make you realise your approch is wrong and that we have established codes of conduct that we need you to abide by. Insulting comments like "you must be wrapped in cotton wool" appear to me to be a continuation of your lack of understanding or willingness to cooperate. The conversation here is a second stage attempt (the first being conversations on your talk page) to resolve this dispute. It appears to have failed. MRSC • Talk 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be
WP:Wikilawyering Jza84, to push your social minority and entirely unorthodox view that the local government administration areas (such as
Greater Manchester) invented in 1974, which are subject to change at any time, are actually recognised cultural areas in the sense of the "traditional counties" are.
[89] You make such hit and run, unsourced reverts to the UK geography project guideline.
[90] While refusing point blank to engage in talkpage discussion, this is in violation of our editing policies and completely unconstructive behaviour.
[91]
The fact that you have the nerve to then come here (playing the victim) and suggest my edit to the guideline which was made with sources from United Kingdom governmental and royal figures [92] is a "damaging edit" because it does not support your social minority POV, is clearly and undoubtedly a violation of WP:NPA. You of course, have a history of personal attacks against myself, with your earlier "racism" attack. I would be interested in having an uninvolved, unbias party review the behavioural actions of this editor, including the tendancy to refuse talkpage discussion, Wikilawyer in an attempt to place the burdon of social minority view before government and monarchy stance, as well as the tendancy to engage in personal attacks. Would I need to start a new section on here?- Yorkshirian ( talk) 11:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(reset indent)
May I here implore you, in the words of St Benedict "tempered in all things, so that the strong may have something to strive for and the weak nothing to run from". Several editors have been making contributions which have been nullified by your actions so others (including me) have been notable by their absence.-- Harkey Lodger ( talk) 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This second stage of dispute resolution has become unproductive. Yorkshirian has not taken the issues raised here about his conduct on board and clearly does not accept his behaviour as problematic. Proceed to RFC. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree to proceed to RFC, more in sadness---.-- Harkey Lodger ( talk) 12:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Filed here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian MRSC • Talk 15:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Despite several warnings, [93] [94] [95] MRSC has attempted to bully me around Wikipedia and has violated Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, amongs others only this morning, in his all consuming crusade against me, an obsesive crusade in which he is attempting to drag me away from peacefully editing articles.
The way MRSC and friend address me on my talk page, is in a "can do no wrong" condoscending, and "holier than thou" manner, which is in itself offensive and a cause for friction. MRSC's almost trance like obsession with me, unwillingness to let old disagreements go, is exemplified in him following me around from article to article only this morning, when I was add information to them. It is an uncomfortable feeling, to the point of weirding me out that, every edit and move I make on Wikipedia is being watched over my shoulder by MRSC and friend, ready to jump on me at any moment in an act of harassment and Wikilawyering in an attempt to get legislation against me for the simple reason that the two disagree on some elements of content disputes. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can I do? - Yorkshirian ( talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I accept we have little option but wait for the RFC to end. It is unfortunate that there appears to be retaliation since it has been filed in the form of some very serious allegations. Using talk pages to engage with Yorkshirian has failed to produce an amicable outcome, so it is right that we cease informing him of transgressions of the style we have already informed him of our concern about. That said, there should be somewhere we can go to report worsening conduct problems (such as the disruption involving the bogus "vote rigging" claims) and I'm concerned that ANI did not provide us with a route to dealing with these issues. MRSC • Talk 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like some independent eyes from this noticeboard directed to this page, particularly with reference to this and this response. Perhaps this exchange is relevant too. I stand ready to alter my own behaviour as advised. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 19:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's a long discussion so I can only go through little by little.
Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
In South Slavs section this user has started off with instant blind reverts with swear words [ [106]] to my attempts to enrich the article. BalkanFever often defends this article from being increased and any new reliable sources from being reflected, as the article at the moment does not even make the distinction between Slavs and South Slavs and this to BalkanFever seems to be his aim for some unknown reason. This is very odd behaviour, and I suspect foul play here, can somebody assist? Noonien Soong ( talk) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite video}}
template to provide a time-stamp for where the laughing occurred * (I disagreed, considering the matter within the same purview that we consider plot summaries as well as being redundant and unclear; the section where the info was used is called “Closing Credits” and the laughter occurred throughout that part of the film. As observable phenomena which was also noted by closed-captioning does not need citation, I removed the template) - Viriditas saw that as an act of [[WP::NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground|war]].Last I heard of this Arcayne Children of Men problem was at Wikipedia:RSN#Closing credits on Children of Men, and according to posts there, you had also brought it up elsewhere (NOR is mentioned). Consensus was clearly against you (Arcayne); I find it hard to understand why you are still on about this, unless the goal is to simply overwhelm with verbosity. It seems very straightforward. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Arcayne, the irony of you posting a wikiquette alert against another editor I’m sure does not go unnoticed by the many editors with whom you’ve had conflicts. Viriditas has shown remarkable patience with you which I have not seen returned by you, and I’ve tried to nicely advise you that continuing your vendetta against him is unproductive for all involved, particularly in light of your own poor behavior, not only with him, but with many other editors. I prefer to spend my limited time at Wikipedia on more positive aspects, like working on articles, but if you’re going to continue disrupting the project by harassing a very productive editor (in the top 100) with 60,000 edits, who has created hundreds of articles, brought many to FA and GA status, along with producing countless DYKs, then perhaps my time will be better spent preventing this persistent disruption by documenting your problematic behavior in order to bring it in check. The preferable route of course is that you simply stop this pursuit and consider the negative effects of your behavior, how you are creating a tedious, wearisome environment for many other volunteers who invest time on this project. Please think about what I am saying. -- MPerel 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)